Skip to main content

Full text of "The American nation:"

See other formats






VOL. 6 



Group I. 

Foundations of the Nation 

Vol. I European Background of American 
History, by Edward Potts Chey- 
ney, A.M., Prof. Hist. Univ. of Pa. 

** 2 Basis of American History, by 
Livingston Farrand, M.D., Prof. 
Anthropology Columbia Univ. 

" 3 Spain in Ameri ca, by Edward Gay- 
lord Bourne, Ph.D., Prof. Hist. 
Yale Univ. 

** 4 England in America, by Lyon Gar- 
diner Tyler, LL.D., President 
William and Mary College. 

'* 5 Colonial Self - Government, by 
Charles McLean Andrews, Ph.D., 
Prof. Hist. Johns Hopkins Univ. 

Group II. 

Transformation into a Nation 

Vol. 6 Provincial America, by Evarts 
Boutell Greene, Ph.D., Prof. Hist, 
and Dean of College, Univ. of 111. 
" 7 France in America, by Reuben 
Gold Thwaites, LL.D., See. Wis- 
consin State Hist. Soc. 

Vol. 8 Preliminaries of the Revolution, 
by George Elliott Howard, Ph.D., 
Prof. Hist. Univ. of Nebraska. 

*' 9 The American Revolution, by- 
Claude Halstead VanTyne,Ph.D., 
Prof. Hist. Univ. of Michigan. 

" ID The Confederation and the Consti- 
tution, by Andrew Cunningham 
McLaughlin, A.M., Head Prof. 
Hist. Univ. of Chicago. 

Group III. 

Development op the Nation 

Vol. II The Federalist System, by John 
Spencer Bassett, Ph.D., Prof. 
Am. Hist. Smith College. 

*' 12 The Jeffersonian System, by Ed- 
ward Channing, Ph.D., Prof. Hist. 
Harvard Univ. 

" 13 Rise of American Nationality, by 
Kendric Charles Babcock, Ph.D., 
Pres. Univ. of Arizona. 

*' 14 Rise of the New West, by Freder- 
ick Jackson Turner, Ph.D., Prof. 
Am. Hist. Univ. of Wisconsin. 

" 15 Jacksonian Democracy, by Will- 
iam MacDonald, LL.D., Prof. 
Hist. Brown Univ. 

Group IV. 

Trial of Nationality 

Vol, 16 Slavery and Abolition, by Albert 
Bushnell Hart, LL.D., Prof. Hist. 
Harvard Univ. 

Vol.17 Westward Extension, by George 
Pierce Garrison, Ph.D., Prof. 
Hist. Univ. of Texas. 

" i8 Parties and Slavery, by Theodore 
Clarke Smith, Ph.D., Prof. Am. 
Hist. WilUams College. 

" 19 Causesofthe Civil Admiral 
French Ensor Chadwick, U.S.N., 
recent Pres. of Naval War Col. 

** 20 The Appeal to Arms, by James 
Kendall Hosmer, LL.D., recent 
Librarian Minneapolis Pub. Lib. 

" 21 Outcome of the Civil War, by 
James Kendall Hosmer, LL.D., re- 
cent Lib. MinneapoHs Pub. Lib. 

Group V. 
National Expansion 
Vol, 22 Reconstruction, Political and Eco- 
nomic, by William Archibald Dun- 
ning, Ph.D., Prof. Hist, and Politi- 
cal Philosophy Columbia Univ. 
" 23 National Development, by Edwin 
Erie Sparks, Ph.D., Prof. Ameri- 
can Hist. Univ. of Chicago. 
" 24 National Problems, by Davis R. 
Dewey, Ph.D., Professor of Eco- 
nomics, Mass. Institute of Tech- 

" 25 America as a World Power, by 
John H. Latane, Ph.D., Prof. 
Hist. Washington and Lee Univ. 

" 26 National Ideals Historically 
Traced, by Albert Bushnell Hart, 
LL.D., Prof. Hist. Harvard Univ. 

" 27 Index to the Series, by David 
Maydole Matteson, A.M. 


The Massachusetts Historical Society 

Charles Francis Adams, LL.D., President 
Samuel A. Green, M.D., Vice-President 
James Ford Rhodes, LL.D., 2d Vice-President 
Edward Channing, Ph.D., Prof, History Harvard 

Worthington C. Ford, Chief of Division of MSS. 
Library of Congress 

The Wisconsin Historical Society 

Reuben G. Thwaites, LL.D., Secretary and Super- 

Frederick J. Turner, Ph.D., Prof, of American His- 
tory Wisconsin University 

James D. Butler, LL.D., formerly Prof. Wisconsin 

William W. Wight, President 

Henry E. Legler, Curator 

The Virginia Historical Society 

William Gordon McCabe, Litt.D., President 

Lyon G. Tyler, LL.D., Pres. of William and Mary 

Judge David C. Richardson 
J. A. C. Chandler, Professor Richmond College 
Edward Wilson James 

The Texas Historical Society 

Judge John Henninger Reagan, President 
George P. Garrison, Ph.D., Prof, of History Uni- 
versity of Texas 
Judge C. W. Raines 
Judge Zachary T. FuUmore 





1 690- 1 740 





JUL 1 91918 


Copyright, 1905, by Harper & Brothers. 


- -j b l:j Si 


M. J. G. AND D. C. G. 



Editor's Introduction xv 

Author's Preface xix 

I. England and the Colonies (1689) .... 3 

II. Provincial Reorganization (1689-1692) . . 17 

III. Extension of Imperial Control (1689-1713) 30 

IV. Administrative Control of the Provinces 

(1689-1713) 43 

v. Constitutional Tendencies in the Colonies 

(1689-1713) 63 

VI. Puritans and Anglicans (1689-17 14) ... 83 

VII. French and English Interests in America 

(1689) 106 

VIII. King William's War (1689-1701) .... 119 

IX. Queen Anne's War (1700-1709) 136 

X. Acadia and the Peace of Utrecht (1709- 

1713) 154 

XI. Imperial Policy and Administration (1714- 

1742) 166 

XII. Provincial Politics (1714-1740) 190 

XIII. Provincial Leaders (1714-1740) 208 

XIV. Immigration and Expansion (1690-1740) . . 228 

XV. Founding of Georgia (i 732-1 754) .... 249 

XVI. Provincial Industry (1690-1740) .... 270 




XVII. Provincial Commerce (i 690-1 740). 

XVIII. Provincial Culture (i 690-1 740) . 

XIX. Critical Essay on Authorities . 


North America, Showing European Claims, 
Occupation, and Settlements (1689) {in 

Types of Colonial Governments (1682- 
1730) {in colors) 

Intercolonial Wars (1689-1713) . . . . 

Frontier Warfare of New England (1689- 


Eastern North America (171 5) {in colors) 
Part of North America, Simplified from 

Popple's Map (1733) 

Settlement of Georgia (i 732-1 763) , . . 


TO the period between 1689 and 1740 has been 
appHed the term **The Forgotten Half -Cen- 
tury." Most of the writers on colonial history in 
detail give special attention to the seventeenth 
century, the period of upbuilding; and the general 
historians like Bancroft and Hildreth sweep rather 
lightly over the epoch between the English Revolu- 
tion and the forerunnings of the American Revo- 
lution. In distributing the parts of The American 
Nation, this period has been selected for especial 
treatment, because within it are to be foimd the 
roots of many later institutions and experiences. 

The external side of provincial history, especially 
in its relations with France, has been reserved for 
Thwaites's France in America (vol. VII. of this se- 
ries), except so far as it affected the internal devel- 
opment of the colonies previous to 17 13. vSpace is 
thus available for a constitutional treatment which 
shall bring out the general imperial system of 
Great Britain, the organs and methods of colonial 
control, and the principles of domestic government 
in America ; and to put the subject in a proper rela- 
tion with the economic and social life of the time. 

VOL, VI. — 2 



The book begins with an account of imperial 
conditions in 1689 (chap, i.) ; the next four chap- 
ters are devoted to various phases of colonial gov- 
ernment, and bring into relief the disposition of 
the English authorities to tighten the reins of co- 
lonial control. The establishment of the English 
Church in some of the colonies and the attempt to 
bring the colonies into the English ''system," ec- 
clesiastically as well as politically, is the theme of 
chapter vi. 

Chapters vii. to x. summarize the military strug- 
gle in the colonies brought on by the world ri- 
valry between France and England; but this war 
is treated in its relations with American colonial 
history, leaving out the extensions of Canada and 
Louisiana beyond the reach of the colonists, and 
also avoiding the European side of the story. 

Chapters xi. to xiii. develop the changes in im- 
perial and local government during the first third 
of the eighteenth century, and also deal with the 
important subject of the beginnings of political 
organization in America. 

Chapters xiv. to xviii. are devoted to the social and 
economic development of the Continental colonies, 
including the movement of new masses and new 
race elements across the ocean; the filling-in of the 
settled area; and the pushing backward to the 
moimtains, and southward to the southern boundary, 
of the new colony of Georgia. Special stress is 
laid upon the extension of the Navigation Acts to 


the West India and to over-sea trade, thus supple- 
menting the treatment of that subject in Andrews's 
Colonial Self-Government (vol. V., chap. i.). Within 
the last chapter of text the author deals with the 
intellectual and literary life of the people. The 
Critical Essay on Authorities ranges in order the 
most valuable part of the confusing literature of 
the period. 

The service of the book to the series is to build 
a bridge between the fotmding of the colonies, de- 
scribed in the fourth and fifth volimies of The 
American Nation, and the separation of the colonies, 
which is the subject of Howard's Preliminaries of 
the Revolution (vol. VIIL). Its theme is the es- 
sential difficulty of reconciling imperial control with 
the degree of local responsibility which had to be 
accorded to the colonists. 


THE half-century of American history which fol- 
lows the English revolution of 1689 presents 
peculiar difficulties of treatment. The historian must 
deal with the experience of thirteen different colo- 
nies which were, however, ultimately to become one 
nation, and which even then possessed important 
elements of unity. Within the limits of a single 
volume it is obviously impossible to tell the story 
of each individual colony, and at the same time to 
discuss the general movements of the time. It is 
the author's conviction that the most instructive 
method for the student of this period is to empha- 
size the general movements. 

The history of this provincial era is comparative- 
ly deficient in dramatic incidents; and the interest 
lies rather in the aggregate of small transactions, 
constituting what are called general tendencies, 
which gradually and obscurely prepare the way for 
the more striking but not necessarily more impor- 
tant periods of decisive conflict and revolution. 

First of all, this was a time of marked expansion: 
the seventeenth century stocks were reinforced by 
large numbers of immigrants; the areas of settle- 




ment were extended ; and there was also an impor- 
tant development of industry and commerce. This 
material expansion led up gradually to the struggle 
for the mastery of the continent, which will be 
described in the next voltime. 

A second important feature of the time is the 
interaction of imperial and provincial interests. 
After the violent and radical movements of the 
years from 1684 to 1689, there was worked out for 
the first time a fairly complete system of imperial 
control. In the efforts of the colonists to preserve 
within that system the largest possible measure of 
self-government, principles were involved which 
were brought to more radical issues in the revolu- 
tionary era. In the political conflicts of this period 
such men as Thomas Hutchinson and Benjamin 
Franklin were trained for the larger posts assigned 
to them in later years. 

Finally, with all due allowance for divisive forces, 
there was a growing unity in provincial life. Ma- 
terial expansion was gradually filling the wilderness 
spaces which divided the colonies ; a broader, though 
still provincial, culture was increasing the points of 
intellectual contact ; under various forms of govern- 
ment, the Americans of that time cherished com- 
mon ideals of personal liberty and local autonomy. 

Scholars generally agree that the subject-matter 
of this volume has never been adequately treated 
as a whole, though there are some good mono- 
graphs and an almost bewildering mass of local and 



antiquarian publications. It is hardly possible 
even now to write a history which can be called 
in any sense definitive; certainly, no such claim is 
made for the present work. In the main, the 
author's purpose has been to state fairly, and to 
correlate, conclusions already familiar to special 
students in this field. 

Mr. David M. Matteson prepared the preliminary 
sketches for the maps in this volume. The author 
desires also to express his more than usual obliga- 
tions to the editor for helpful suggestions both as 
to matter and form. 






THE revolution of 1689 was, in the first instance, 
a revolution of the English people. Through 
their representatives in the great convention they 
defended the Protestant establishment of the church, 
asserted the sovereignty of Parliament, defined 
certain fundamental rights of the individual, and, 
finally, placed these ancient rights under the pro- 
tection of their new sovereigns, William and Mary. 
A few weeks later a similar convention in Scotland 
took similar action ; and during the next two years 
the military campaigns of William and his ofiicers 
re-established in the dependent principality of Ire- 
land the authority of the English crown and the 
English church. These events, however, did not 
establish the "United Kingdom" of to-day. For 
a century longer Ireland maintained her separate 
though dependent Parliament; and the legislative 




union of Scotland and England was not accom- 
plished for nearly twenty years. From the stand- 
point of British law and administration, Scotchmen 
and Irishmen were still in large measure alien peo- 
ples, both in England and in the colonies. 

These political movements in the British Isles 
were followed with close interest by large numbers 
of English subjects in the American hemisphere. 
They produced or made possible similar movements 
there, and radically changed the internal organiza- 
tion of the colonies as well as their relation to each 
other and to the mother-country. Notwithstanding 
the close causal connection between the revolution- 
ary movements in the mother-country and in the 
colonies, there were important differences between 
them, due to peculiar conditions prevailing either 
in the colonies as a whole or in particular colo- 
nies or groups of colonies. The American move- 
ments cannot, therefore, be understood without 
some analysis of those conditions.^ 

The main body of the English colonists in 1689 
occupied a narrow strip of territory stretching along 
the seaboard from the Kennebec River in Maine to 
the Ashley in South Carolina. Beyond the strug- 
gling English settlements in Maine, to the north and 
east, was a region in which English and French 
claims overlapped. In the south the Carolinas 
had been settled in defiance of the prior Spanish 

* Compare the following discussion with Andrews, Colonial 
Self-Government {Am. Nation, V.) , chaps, xviii, xix. 




claims, and the new settlement of Charleston, in 
particular, was jealously watched by the Spanish 
garrison at St. Augustine. Everywhere the frontier 
line was drawn close to the sea. Here and there 
were interior posts in the wilderness, like the 
Massachusetts towns in the Connecticut Valley, 
and Schenectady on the Mohawk, but even towns 
within a few miles of Boston were still subject to 
Indian forays. 

North of these permanent settlements on the 
main-land, were several remote trading-posts on 
the shores of Hudson Bay, maintained by the Hud- 
son's Bay Company. A few small fishing settle- 
ments also existed on the eastern shore of New- 
foundland, but the English claim to the island was 
challenged by a French fort on Placentia Bay. 

To the south, England had already acquired a 
series of insular possessions, beginning with the 
Bermudas, and including in succession the Baha- 
mas, the Leeward Islands, Barbadoes, and Jamaica. 
Commercial and social relations of considerable im- 
portance existed between the insular colonies and 
those of the mainland, and their political tendencies 
were in some respects much alike. 

The population of these colonies can only be 
roughly estimated. New England, not counting 
Indians, may have numbered about eighty thou- 
sand, of whom about two-thirds were included in 
1 69 1 under the political jurisdiction of Massachu- 
setts. New York, New Jersey, and Penn's colonies 



on the Delaware had together a popiilation probably 
somewhat less than that of Massachusetts. Virginia 
was then the largest of the colonies, and the two 
Chesapeake provinces combined probably had a 
population slightly larger than that of New Eng- 
land. In the isolated Carolina settlements, there 
may have been in all five thousand people, including 

In these British dominions there was already a 
considerable variety of racial elements. The New 
England colonists were almost exclusively of Eng- 
lish stock, and so for the most part were the white 
settlers of the south, though there was already a 
small French Huguenot colony in South Carolina. 
New York was a comparatively recent conquest, 
with the Dutch considerably outnumbering the Eng- 
lish element and a smaller representation of other 
European stocks. In Pennsylvania the generous 
policy of Penn and his liberal advertisements in 
continental Europe had attracted some non-Eng- 
lish immigrants to reinforce the early Swedish and 
Dutch settlers and the English Quakers. African 
and, to a lesser extent, Indian slavery existed 
throughout the continental colonies as well as in 
the islands; though in the former it was only be- 
ginning to assume an important position. In South 
Carolina, however, by the close of the century, the 
negroes outnumbered the whites. 

The American colonists differed from each other 
* Dexter, Estimates of Population in the American Colonies. 




120° 110' 100' 

_^ i-ll , 



I I English \ \ French | | Spanish 

— Limit of English Claims 

- — ■ — Limit of French Claims 
X X X X Limit of Spanish Claims 
Frontier of English Settlements 

The solid coloring indicates Possessions or Claims not actively disputed. 
The stripes of different colors indicate Rival Claims. 


400 GOO 




100° Loiif 




not merely in racial distinctions, but sometimes 
even more decisively in religion. New England as 
a whole was still dominated by the religious ideals 
of the Puritan founders of Massachusetts Bay. Dis- 
senters could not, however, be absolutely excluded, 
as the Antinomians and the early Quakers had 
been in the days of Winthrop and Endicott. Rhode 
Island, with her ideal of religious toleration, still 
stood in marked antagonism to the old Puritan 
ecclesiasticism ; and the royal government of the 
Andros regime had given the Episcopal church a 
foothold in Massachusetts. In the closing years of 
the seventeenth century the Anglican clergy and 
laymen of New England constituted a small but 
energetic minority which had to be reckoned with 
as a real political force. 

The racial differences of the middle colonies were 
reflected in the field of religion. In New York, 
Calvinism was not so strongly intrenched nor so 
aggressive as in New England. Its adherents were 
in a decided majority, but were themselves divided 
into rival organizations, of which the most impor- 
tant were the old Dutch Reformed church, lately 
the established church of New Netherland, and the 
more loosely associated Congregational churches 
which had their strongholds on Long Island, thus 
bringing into New York politics the militant spirit 
of New England Puritanism. The Lutherans were 
also represented in the colony, and the Church of 
England had a bare foothold. Between these van- 



ous Protestant bodies, the early English governors 
had maintained on the whole a fairly even balance. 
The few Catholics of the province, protected from 
persecution during the supremacy of James, the 
Catholic proprietor and king, became in the revolu- 
tion of 1689 the chief objects of popular hatred, and 
were afterwards subjected to severe penalties. In 
Pennsylvania the strongest influence was, of course, 
that of the Quakers, but there were also Anglicans, 
Lutherans, and other Protestants. In none of the 
middle colonies was there a true state church, and 
it is in them that the student finds the nearest ap- 
proach to the freedom and diversity of our modern 
American life. 

Virginia, notwithstanding some jealousies be- 
tween clergy and laity, held strongly to the Angli- 
can establishment. In Maryland the Catholic pro- 
prietor had striven to keep the peace between 
Catholics, Puritans, and Anglicans, but the violent 
anti-Catholic spirit of the English revolution as- 
serted itself here as in New York. Provincial poli- 
ticians used this religious antagonism to overthrow 
for a time the government of the proprietor, and 
when the revolution was over the Anglican party 
reaped the fruits of the Protestant victory in the 
legal establishment of their own church. In the 
Carolinas the early policy of the proprietors gave 
rise to a religious diversity similar to that in the 
middle colonies. The AngHcans were the strong- 
est element among the early settlers of Charleston, 




but there were also French Huguenots, Scotch and 
Irish Presbyterians, and New England Puritans. 
The obscure settlements of North Carolina could 
hardly be said at this time to have any definite re- 
ligious complexion. The Quaker missionaries ex- 
erted a considerable influence, but the general at- 
mosphere was one of religious indifference. 

The economic occupations and interests of the 
colonies at the close of the seventeenth century 
have been carefully examined in the preceding 
volume of this series and require only a brief re- 
view here. In all the colonies agricultural interests 
were predominant, but the specific character of 
these interests varied widely. In Maryland and 
Virginia the large plantation was becoming the 
characteristic economic unit, and there were no 
considerable centres of trade. Negro slavery had 
gained a firm foothold, and the planters were al- 
most wholly absorbed in the production of tobacco 
for export. South Carolina was developing along 
West Indian lines the plantation system in its 
most extreme form; and she differed from the 
Chesapeake colonies in possessing a commercial and 
social centre at Charleston, which completely domi- 
nated also the political life of the colony throughout 
its history. 

In the middle colonies economic conditions were 
more varied, and flourishing trading centres had 
grown up at Philadelphia and New York, over- 
shadowing others of less importance. The large 

VOL. VI. — 3 


plantation existed here also to a limited extent, 
notably among the Hudson River people, but the 
small farmer was also an important factor through- 
out this region. The organization of agriculture 
in New England differed more sharply from that 
of the south. Here the farmers gathered in towns 
within easy reach of the meeting-house. Their out- 
lying farms were small as compared with Virginia 
plantations, negro slavery was an almost negligible 
factor, and there were no great agricultural staples 
comparable with tobacco. Agriculture was supple- 
mented by the important fishing industry and the 
Indian fur trade. The timber resources of New 
England had been used for ship-building on a con- 
siderable scale, and her vessels were engaged in a 
constantly widening intercolonial and foreign trade. 

This developing industrial life of the colonies 
Parliament was now attempting to guide in certain 
legally established channels; but the navigation 
acts, with their restrictions on colonial shipping, 
imports, and exports, were imperfectly obeyed. 
For their really efficient enforcement a different 
governmental organization was necessary; and the 
attempt to secure such a system became one of the 
most important factors in the constitutional history 
of the later colonial era. 

The governments of the American colonies were, 
at the close of the Stuart period, in a state of de- 
cidedly unstable equilibriimi, due to the adoption 
by the English crown of a new and aggressive colo- 




nial policy. These new measures, however, cannot 
be appreciated without recalling certain leading 
principles of English colonial policy in its earlier 

The first is the leaving of responsibility, not 
merely for the economic development but for the 
government of new colonies, to private individuals, 
private associations, or corporations, acting either 
under the authority of royal charters, or, as some- 
times happened in New England, simply by the 
siifferance of the crown. No one of the main-land 
colonies began its career under a royal or provincial 
government, and until 1684 only two were definitely 
so organized: Virginia, which became a royal gov- 
ernment in 1624, after the charter of the Virginia 
Company had been annulled; and New Hampshire, 
which, after a varied experience at first under the 
nominal rule of a proprietor, and then as a part of 
Massachusetts, was finally, in 1679, organized as a 
separate royal province.^ 

Secondly, the tendency was, instead of concen- 
trating governmental responsibility in a few hands, 
to authorize, or to permit, a large number of small 
governments. By 1684 there were on the main- 
land twelve distinct colonial governments: New 
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Plymouth, Rhode Isl- 
and, Connecticut, New York, East New Jersey, 
West New Jersey, Pennsylvania with the ''lower 

* Compare on this subject, Tyler, England in America, passim; 
Andrews, Colonial Self -Govarument^chsLn ii (yi *n. Nation, IV., V,), 



counties," Virginia, Maryland, and Carolina, having, 
for the most part, no political connection with each 
other except their common subjection, slight and 
intangible as that often was, to the English crown 
and Parliament. 

The greatest variety appeared in the character of 
these governments, both as to the nature of their 
relations with the home government and as to 
their internal organization. In Virginia the con- 
stitution was in the main embodied in the royal 
commission and instructions issued to each suc- 
ceeding governor. In the more recently organized 
proprietary governments the proprietor, though 
given considerable freedom of action, was held in 
check by such requirements as the allowing of ap- 
peals to the Privy Council or the submission of 
colonial laws for the approval of the crown. There 
were also quasi-independent governments like those 
of Maryland, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, where 
the crown had no effective check on colonial law and 
administration. Under the royal charters. New 
England had become the home of practically repub- 
lican governments, where judges and executive offi- 
cers as well as law-makers were chosen by the people 
or their representatives. The Maryland proprietary 
government may be described as a constitutional 
monarchy of the conservative type, while Penn's 
constitution was much more liberal. These govern- 
ments, however, had one thing in common : the prin- 
ciple of popular representation had in some form or 




other been conceded in all of them, sometimes freely, 
as in Pennsylvania, and sometimes tardily, or only 
temporarily, as in New York. Often, however, the 
privileges of these representative bodies were im- 
perfectly defined and held on a somewhat pre- 
carious tenure. 

A third striking characteristic of early colonial 
policy was the almost entire absence of parlia- 
mentary control. The English territories in Ameri- 
ca, whether acquired by discovery or by conquest, 
were the domains of the crown. The king deter- 
mined the conditions under which they should be 
occupied, their trade carried on, and their govern- 
ments organized. Not until the period of the 
Commonwealth did Parliament begin to concern it- 
self actively in the affairs of the colonies; and at 
first its work was mainly confined to the assertion 
of principles, without providing adequate machinery 
for their enforcement. 

During the second half of the seventeenth cen- 
tury there was in England greater interest in the 
problem of colonial government. The material re- 
sources and the industry of the colonies were to be 
exploited and made factors in the development of 
national power. By the navigation acts of the 
Commonwealth and Restoration governments. Par- 
liament tmdertook to regulate the course of colonial 
enterprise. The trade of the colonies must be car- 
ried on in EngHsh ships and by EngHsh seamen. 
Many of their staple articles of export might be 


sent to Europe only through English ports, and 
their imports from Europe must come only by way 
of England. The acts which asserted these general 
principles were naturally followed by others which 
were needed to settle doubtful questions of con- 
struction, and to secure a more effective enforce- 

The primary motive of this legislation was finan- 
cial or economic, but it had also important constitu- 
tional results. Since the existing colonial govern- 
ments could not be relied upon to enforce thoroughly 
the requirements of the navigation acts, a special 
official service was organized in the colonies, charged 
with this specific duty. Consequently, there soon 
appeared side by side with the local governments 
of individual colonies, whether provincial, pro- 
prietary, or republican, the surveyor-general and 
the collectors of customs, as the representatives of 
a new imperial control. These new officials in 
turn were supervised and controlled by the Privy 
Council with its Committee of Trade and Planta- 

Even these measures, however, were inadequate. 
The thorough enforcement of the law required the 
cordial co-operation of the colonial governor with 
the royal agent, but instead of this there was 
mutual suspicion and dislike. The governor was 
influenced by the local sentiment of the colony or 

^Cf. Andrews, Colonial Self - Government (Am. Nation, V.), 
chaps, i., ii. 




the personal interests of the proprietor, which were 
often at variance with those of the crown. It was 
natural enough, therefore, that such men as Ed- 
ward Randolph, who looked at the problem from 
the point of view of a royal official, should demand 
a reorganization of the colonial governments them- 
selves, in order to make them more effective agents 
of imperial control. These general considerations, 
with others of a more local character, gradually led 
the EngHsh government to adopt new principles of 
colonial administration. 

The changed attitude of the crown towards the 
proprietary governments was illustrated in the New 
York patent of 1664, and still more in Penn's 
charter of 1 68 1 . In both these provinces the right of 
appeal to the Privy Council was expressly reserved 
by the crown, and in Pennsylvania this check upon 
provincial independence was reinforced by a num- 
ber of new provisions, including a royal veto on 
colonial laws. In 1684 came the revocation of the 
Massachusetts charter, followed during the next 
four years by the gradual incorporation in a single 
province of eight hitherto distinct jurisdictions, in- 
cluding, besides all of New England, New York and 
the Jerseys, all of which were covered by the royal 
commission to Andros in 1688. Legal proceedings 
were also ordered for the purpose of annulling the 
proprietary authority in Delaware, Maryland, and 
the Carolinas. It seems probable that if this policy 
had not been interrupted by the revolution of 1689, 



direct control by the crown would have been secured 
in all, or nearly all, of the colonies. 

Thus the later policy of the Stuarts embodied 
these two leading principles: the substitution of 
royal for proprietary or elective governments; and 
the consolidation of ntimerous petty jurisdictions 
into a smaller number of strong provinces. Such 
a policy would probably in any case have provoked 
sharp antagonism from the colonists, and from the 
various proprietary interests which were thus as- 
sailed. It was still further weakened by being as- 
sociated with another form of restriction with which 
it had no necessary connection: the colonies which 
were successively incorporated in the "greater New 
England" of 1688 were left without any general 
representative assembly to take the place of the 
various local bodies which had been superseded. 
The extension of imperial control and the consoli- 
dation of governments may be regarded in some 
aspects at least as measures of progress; the denial 
of popular representation was distinctly reaction- 



WHEN the English revolution of 1689 opened 
the way for similar movements in America, the 
opposition gathered strength from various sources. 
The chartered colonies of Nev\^ England desired their 
old local independence ; their religious prejudices also 
were stirred by the support which the Andros re- 
gime had given to the Anglican church, and by its 
toleration of what seemed to them a looser morality. 
The Catholicism of James and some of his agents 
was a prime factor in enabling the revolutionists of 
New York to discredit his authority in the province. 
There and in New England stanch Anglicans were 
suspected as possible tools of a ''Popish" conspir- 
acy. In Maryland, however, this religious antag- 
onism had precisely the opposite effect, and con- 
tributed towards the temporary overthrow of the 
proprietor and the extension of royal control. 

One of the first acts of William III. was the ap- 
pointment, in February, 1689, of a new Committee 
of the Privy Coimcil on Trade and Plantations, in- 
cluding the leading ministers of state, both Whig 



and Tory. In the early months of 1689 the gen- 
eral principles of colonial policy were discussed with 
some care, and the new committee accepted, in 
large measure, the policy of its predecessors. Thus, 
in April, 1689, before the uprising in New England 
was known, the committee recommended the or- 
ganization of such a government in New England, 
New York, and the Jerseys, as would enable the 
people to oppose the French with their imited forces. 
Here the military motive appears to reinforce the 
commercial argument for closer control. In May of 
the same year the committee suggested as a proper 
subject for consideration by Parliament whether 
Maryland, the Carolinas, and Pennsylvania should 
not be brought into closer dependence upon the 
crown. Pending the settlement of a definite policy, 
the existing political arrangements in the colonies 
were, in general, to be continued.^ 

In the mean time the colonists were taking mat- 
ters into their own hands. Revolutionary move- 
ments in Massachusetts and New York overthrew 
the Andros administration ; the New England colo- 
nies resumed their chartered constitutions, and 
in New York Leisler set up his revolutionary 
government. In Maryland the agitators of the 
Protestant Association took advantage of religious 
prejudices against the Catholic proprietor to over- 
throw his authority and organize a new govern- 
ment in the name of William and Mary. Even in 
* Cal. of State Pap., Cel., 1689-1692, pp. 6, 34, 39. 


Virginia and the West Indian Islands considerable 
uneasiness resulted from the political changes at 
home.^ The confusion was seriously increased in 
many colonies by the outbreak of war with France 
and by Indian incursions on the northern frontiers. 
With these various and perplexing problems to be 
dealt with, it is not surprising that the king and 
his ministers were not able at once to restore order 
and carry out a consistent policy; and it is a mark 
of statesmanship that during the next two years 
a fair solution of the problem was worked out in 
most of the colonies. 

The basis of this settlement was compromise. 
Though the colonial policy of James 11. was main- 
tained in many of its essential features, it was con- 
siderably modified, and on one point was definitely 
abandoned. The privilege of a representative as- 
sembly could hardly be denied by a government in- 
stituted for the protection of representative in- 
stitutions in the mother-country; and it was now 
restored in all the colonies. 

The question still remained of restoring the old 
charters, especially in New England. The colonists, 
represented by skilful agents, and supported by in- 
fluential politicians in England, claimed to stand 
in defence of ancient privileges arbitrarily taken 
from them by the now discredited government of 
James II. The Puritan party had played an im- 

*Cf. Andrews, Colonial Self -Government {Am. Nation, V.)^ 
chap. xvii. 


portant part in bringing about the English revolu- 
tion also, and might reasonably claim some con- 
sideration for Puritan interests in America. Against 
these claims, however, were enlisted some powerful 
influences. Many of the new king's counsellors 
had had an active part in the administrations of the 
last two Stuart kings, and were hardly prepared to 
abandon altogether the old policy. The revolution 
also strengthened rather than weakened the in- 
fluence of the merchants in the government; de- 
siring, as they did, a strict observance of the navi- 
gation acts, and a steady assertion of British as 
against distinctively colonial interests, it was clearly 
their interest to extend the administrative control 
of the mother-country. 

Lastly, the outbreak of war both in Europe and 
America served to emphasize the military point of 
view. It was urged again and again in the colonial 
correspondence that the ravages of the Indians on 
the frontier were largely the result of the political 
disintegration which followed the revolution. So 
long as the colonies were divided into petty inde- 
pendent jurisdictions, each pursuing selfishly its own 
immediate interests, there could be no effective co- 
operation for the defence of the empire as a whole. 

The adjustment of colonial governments from 1689 
to 1 69 1 was a fair compromise between the an- 
tagonistic views which have just been described. 
The idea of a consolidated New England was aban- 
doned; Connecticut and Rhode Island were allowed 



to resume their rights of government under the old 
charters which had never been definitely surren- 
dered ; and New Hampshire was to be governed, as 
before, as a separate royal province, though the pro- 
prietor of the soil, Samuel Allen, was given a gov- 
ernor's commission. The tendency towards con- 
solidation appears, however, in the new charter of 
Massachusetts, which organized imder a single royal 
government Massachusetts, Maine, and the old 
colony of Plymouth. The charter also included 
Acadia, recently conquered by Sir William Phips; 
but this clause was deprived of importance through 
the French reconquest of Port Royal in 1691.^ 

The Massachusetts charter was in itself a com- 
promise. The interests of the crown were to be 
protected by a royal governor with a limited ap- 
pointing power and the right of veto upon acts of 
the general court or assembly; there was also an 
ultimate royal veto on colonial statutes, and an 
express right of appeal from colonial courts to the 
Privy Coimcil. These were serious deductions from 
the old colonial independence, but enough remained 
to give Massachusetts imtil the eve of the Ameri- 
can Revolution several marked advantages among 
the royal provinces: the royal veto had to be ex- 
ercised within a specified time; the executive 
cotmcil, which served also as the upper house of 
the legislature, was here alone an elective body, 

^ Cal. of State Pap., Col., passim; cf. Andrews, Colonial Self- 
Covernment {Am. Nation, V.) chap. xvii. 


annually chosen by joint ballot of the council and 
the house of representatives, though subject to the 
governor's veto. The guarantee of annual elections, 
the right to exercise a considerable part of the ap- 
pointing power, and the semi-popular character of 
the legislative upper house gave to the assembly a 
freedom of action and an influence in administration 
not to be found in any other royal province.* 

In New York the revolutionary leaders had in- 
volved themselves in imnecessary antagonism with 
the new government in England and were set aside 
in the final settlement. The province received a 
separate royal government of the ordinary type, but 
the representative principle was definitely recognized. 

The problems of the proprietary governments 
were not settled in any consistent or logical fashion, 
but were largely affected by personal considerations. 
The pending proceedings against the proprietors of 
the Jerseys and of the Carolinas were not pushed, 
in spite of the disorderly conditions in those colonies. 
On the other hand, the proprietors of Pennsylvania 
and Maryland were prejudiced by their associations. 
The fact that Lord Baltimore was a Catholic had 
been emphasized by the unfortunate delay of his 
government in proclaiming the new sovereign, and 
was taken advantage of by the discontented ele- 
ments within the province. The friction between 
proprietary and royal officers during the preceding 

* The Massachusetts charter, in Massachusetts Bay, Acts and 
Resolves, L, 1-20, 



years injured him with the statesmen of the new 
government as well as with their predecessors. 
The result was a somewhat peculiar compromise ; 
Baltimore remained technically in possession of his 
charter, and enjoyed certain rights as proprietor of 
the soil; while the king appointed the governor 
and council, and in general exercised the same 
political authority as in the normal royal province. 

Penn's position was particularly vulnerable: his 
legal title to the lower counties was questioned; his 
officers were charged with laxity in the adminis- 
tration of the navigation laws ; his intimacy with the 
late king made him an object of suspicion ; and there 
was sharp criticism of the Quaker attitude towards 
imperial defence. In this crisis, however, Penn 
and his friends in the province showed a marked 
capacity for diplomacy and passive resistance. Ex- 
cept for a brief interruption in 1 692-1694, during 
which Governor Fletcher, of New York, tmdertook 
to administer the province under a royal commission, 
Penn was able to hold his groimd. 

By the close of the year 1691, the two royal 
governments on the continent had been increased 
to five: New Hampshire; the three leading colonies 
of Virginia, Massachusetts, and Maryland ; and New 
York, which occupied a position of pre-eminent 
strategic importance in the coming struggle with 
Prance. Taken together, the royal provinces now 
had perhaps two-thirds of the total population of 
the continental colonies. Thus the net result of 



the decade which began with Pernios charter in 
1 68 1 and ended with the second Massachusetts 
charter of 1691 was a marked extension of imperial 

Though the Stuart policy had been modified in 
some respects, the Stuart traditions were still 
strong at the court. Provincial officials who had 
begun American service under Charles and James, 
and were closely associated with the carrying out of 
their policy, were retained in the service with every 
indication of royal confidence. The charges against 
Andros were dismissed, and he received afterwards 
an appointment to the royal government of Vir- 
ginia, the most important on the continent. How- 
ard of Effingham, in spite of the vigorous opposition 
in Virginia, was at first reappointed titular governor 
of the province, with Francis Nicholson, Andros's 
former associate in New York, as his lieutenant on 
the ground. Usher, the new lieutenant-governor in 
New Hampshire, belonged to the same party. Above 
all, Edward Randolph, the unsparing critic of the 
chartered governments, continued his colonial career 
as surveyor-general of customs. From these and 
others like them correspondence on colonial affairs 
was constantly coming in to the secretaries of state 
and the committee of trade, and impressing upon 
them the desirability of pushing to its legitimate 
conclusions the policy of imperial control.* 

^Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1689-1692, passim; cf. Andrews, 
Colonial Self-Government {Am. Nation, V.), chap. xvii. 




In Massachusetts the final establishment of even 
a modified provincial system was peculiarly painful, 
and it was associated with another event which 
gave to this constitutional change something of 
tragic dignity. 

It is now well imderstood that the witchcraft de- 
lusion in Massachusetts was no unique incident in 
human history or in the Christian world of that 
time. The basis of the witchcraft idea was the be- 
lief in a personal devil who, through his agents, the 
witches, was constantly conspiring against the wel- 
fare of mankind. This dogma was almost univer- 
sally held by the Christian church in its various 
branches for two centuries after the Protestant revo- 
lution, and was definitely recognized by the law of 
the land. In the Massachusetts Body of Liberties 
of 1 64 1 witchcraft was made a capital offence, and 
in 1692 the general court enacted a law, taken al- 
most verbatim from a statute of James I., imposing 
the same penalty for witchcraft in its more serious 
forms. During the sixteenth and seventeenth cen- 
turies many thousands of persons were executed as 
witches in England, and methods of procedure in 
such cases were carefully set forth in the legal trea- 
tises of the day.* 

Before 1692 there were a few sporadic cases of 
conviction and execution for witchcraft. About ten 
years before the Salem outbreak, the ministers of 

* Massachusetts Bay, Acts and Resolves, I., 55, 56, 90; i James 
I., chap. xii. ; Body of Liberties, in MacDonald, Select Charters, 87. 

VOL. VI. — 4 



Boston and vicinity undertook a serious investiga- 
tion of the history of witchcraft in New England, 
and soon after Increase Mather described, in his Il- 
lustrious Providences^ witchcraft and kindred phe- 
nomena. In 1688 the children of John Goodwin, of 
Boston, were supposed to have been bewitched by 
an Irisji laundress, who was tried and executed. 
Cotton Mather, the son of Increase Mather, inter- 
ested himself in this case, and applied to it his 
theory that the malign influences of the Evil One 
might be overcome by fasting and prayer. In the 
following year he published a book in which he 
insisted on the reality of devils and witches, and 
sharply criticised the sceptics. Richard Baxter, the 
famous English dissenter, thought the book so con- 
vincing that he must be a very obdurate Sadducee 
that will not believe it." Both the Mathers recom- 
mended cautious methods of procedure in the trial 
of supposed witches, but probably their publica- 
tions helped to develop a morbid interest in super- 
natural phenomena.* 

In the mean time the colonists had been abnor- 
mally excited by experiences of other kinds. Their 
old charter had been taken from them, and serious 
men were anxious about the possibility of main- 
taining the old ideals under the changed conditions. 
Then, for several years, a peculiarly shocking war- 
fare had been going on on the frontier with a savage 
people, whom it was easy to think of as fiendish 

* Poole, in Winsor, Memorial Hist, of Boston, II., chap. iv. 



allies of the Evil One. Thus, when the tales of 
witchcraft at Salem village began to come in, they 
foimd a more ready response than might have been 
given in calmer times. 

The disturbance began with the strange actions 
of some young girls at Salem village (now Danvers) . 
Friends and professional advisers were called in, 
and when they agreed that the girls had been be- 
witched there was great alarm, and public fasts 
were kept, not only in the immediate neighborhood, 
but in other parts of the colony. When questioned 
about the cause of their troubles, the afflicted per- 
sons" named at first three women by whom they 
claimed to have been bewitched ; then from time to 
time they made similar charges against other persons. 
In this way a large number of men and women, 
not only in Salem village but in neighboring towns, 
were examined and imprisoned, until finally, in 
May, 1692, the new governor, Sir William Phips, 
and his council organized a special court to try the 
witchcraft cases. During the following summer 
this court sat at Salem, and under its authority 
nineteen persons in all were convicted of witch- 
craft and executed. The majority of them were 
women, but one, George Burroughs, was a graduate 
of Harvard College and a prominent minister of 
the province. One man, Giles Corey, under a strict 
application of the old English law, was pressed to 
L death for refusing to plead. Many others, over- 
wrought by the cruel examinations which they had 


to undergo, and in order to save their own lives, 
made confessions implicating innocent persons. 

These convictions were brought about in large 
measure by the acceptance of what was called 
"spectral" testimony. It was assumed by the 
court in accordance with some English precedents 
that the devil could not assume the form of an 
innocent person. When, therefore, the afflicted 
persons" professed that they had been bewitched by 
the devil in the form of certain individuals whom 
they named, this was taken as conclusive evidence 
of guilt. The leading ministers, however, including 
the Mathers, condemned the use of spectral testi- 
mony, and insisted that the devil might assume the 
form of an innocent person. Finally, when an in- 
creasing number of people of high character and 
social standing, including Lady Phips, began to be 
accused, there was a strong revulsion of feeling. In 
the winter of 1 692-1 693 the special court was super- 
seded by the newly organized superior court, which 
held a special session at Salem in January, 1693. 
About fifty persons were then tried ; but only three 
were convicted, and they were reprieved by Gov- 
ernor Phips, who now ordered that the prosecutions 
should be stopped.^ 

Before many years had passed, the people of 

* Upham, Witchcraft in Salem Village, IL, passim; Hutchin- 
son, Hist, of Mass. Bay, II., 22 et seq.; Woodward, Records 
of Salem Witchcraft, passim; Cal. of State Pap., Col., 168 9- 1692, 
p. 720, 1693-1696, pp. 29, 30; Mather, Magnalia Christi (ed. 
of 1853), I., 207-210, II., 471-479. 




Massachusetts generally were convinced that great 
wrong had been done to innocent people, and the 
general court set apart a day of fasting and prayer 
in recognition of the errors committed in the witch- 
craft proceedings. At that time Cotton Mather 
expressed in his diary his anxiety lest the divine 
displeasure might overtake his family ''for my not 
appearing with vigor enough to stop the proceed- 
ings of the judges when the inextricable storm 
from the Invisible World assaulted the country." 
A more memorable and impressive declaration is 
that of Samuel Sewall, a councillor and a member 
of the witchcraft court, in a paper which he caused 
to be publicly read in his presence at church in 
1697. He manfully took upon himself a large share 
of the "Guilt contracted" in the Salem proceedings, 
''Asking pardon of men, And especially desiring 
prayers that God, who has an Unlimited Authority, 
would pardon that sin and all other his sins; . . . 
and . . . Not Visit the sin of him, or of any other, 
upon himself or any of his, nor upon the Land." ^ 

^ Extracts from Mather's diary, in Wendell, Cotton Mather, 
122; Sewall, Diary, I., 445. 



IN the constitutional adjustments which took 
place in the colonies after the revolution of 
1689, there had been a compromise between two 
contending forces, the spirit of particularism and 
colonial autonomy on the one side and the policy 
of consolidation and control on the other. This 
constitutional compromise was, however, satisfac- 
tory to neither party and could not be regarded 
as final. From the home government there came 
a series of measures, partly legislative and partly 
administrative, which limited the field of local au- 
tonomy. On the other hand, certain constitutional 
tendencies appeared in the colonies which were de- 
nounced as leading towards substantial indepen- 

The demand for closer imperial control was em- 
phasized by the intercolonial wars, which showed 
clearly the need of concerted action, of having some 
authority in the colonies capable of directing mili- 
tary operations as a whole. Commercial considera- 
tions, too, were given a new emphasis during this 




period. The heavy burden of the continental wars 
hastened the development in England of a new and 
more complex financial system, including the be- 
ginnings of the national debt and the Bank of Eng- 
land. In these new departures the government 
needed more than ever the co-operation of the mer- 
cantile interests, and the strength of their influence 
is shown by the prominence of commercial con- 
siderations in foreign politics. When a great war, 
like that of the Spanish Succession, was fought 
largely in the interest of English trade, it was nat- 
ural that the same interest should assert itself more 
strongly than ever in the field of colonial policy. 

The war also brought out various irregularities 
in colonial trade which seemed to demand more 
effective control. There were frequent complaints 
of illicit trade with the enemy, and of privateering 
that passed easily into piracy. These, with the old 
charge of lax enforcement of the navigation acts, 
made up a formidable indictment, which was pressed 
with special vigor against the chartered govern- 
ments, whether proprietary or elective. 

Imperial control as a remedy for colonial ills 
was advocated, not merely by interested merchants 
and zealous officials in England ; it was also urged 
by a small but energetic party in America, includ- 
ing certain officers of the British customs service. 
Edward Randolph, for instance, was again busily 
engaged in writing reports on the violation of the 
navigation acts in various colonies, and occasionally 



quarrelling with less zealous officials. Another im- 
portant representative of the same class was Robert 
Quarry, for a time councillor and acting governor 
of South Carolina, afterwards an admiralty judge 
in the middle colonies, and finally surveyor-general 
of customs for North America. Quarry made him- 
self particularly obnoxious to William Penn by his 
incessant complaints of misgovernment in Penn- 

Some of the royal governors also were conspicu- 
ous for their defence of imperial interests. Among 
them was Francis Nicholson, who, during the reigns 
of William and Anne, serving successively as lieu- 
tenant-governor of Virginia, governor of Maryland, 
governor of Virginia, and governor of Nova Scotia, 
showed a strong sense of the royal prerogative and 
a keen scent for irregularities of every kind, es- 
pecially in the chartered colonies. Another was 
Richard, Earl of Bellomont, who, during the clos- 
ing years of the seventeenth century, was at the 
same time governor of Massachusetts, New Hamp- 
shire, and New York. During the reign of Anne 
the most aggressive of the royal governors were 
Dudley of Massachusetts and New Hampshire, 
Hunter of New York, and Spotswood of Virginia. 
These men and others like them were constantly 
pointing out the evils of the existing situation, 
and urging upon their superiors at home a more 

^Randolph Papers, passim; Ames, Pa. and the English Govt., 



vigorous assertion of parliamentary or royal au- 

The imperialistic party in the colonies was not 
exclusively composed of royal governors and cus- 
toms collectors. In the chartered colonies dis- 
satisfied elements of various kinds saw their ad- 
vantage in the extension of royal control. This 
was the case, for instance, with the comparatively 
small group of Church of England men in New 
England and Pennsylvania. In New Jersey and the 
Carolinas the inefficient or illiberal government of 
the proprietors led many of the colonists, at various 
times, to seek protection from the crown. 

From all these various elements came complaints 
and proposals of reorganization which were reflect- 
ed in ''representations" by the Lords of Trade, in 
orders of the Privy Council, in resolutions of the 
House of Lords or the House of Commons, and 
sometimes even in acts of ParHament. Indeed, one 
of the striking features of colonial poHtics during 
this period is the constant suggestion of parlia- 
mentary action as the only means of dealing thor- 
oughly with colonial problems. 

The colonial statutes of William and Anne were 
intended first to secure a more effective enforce- 
ment of the system inaugurated by the navigation 
acts of Charles 11. , and, secondly, to enlarge the 
field in which its principles should be applied. 

The first object is best illustrated by the naviga- 
tion act of 1696, which was based clearly upon 


official experience of the defects of existing ad- 
ministration. The negligence of the governors, 
especially in the chartered colonies, led to the 
strengthening of the oath hitherto required of royal 
governors, which was now made uneqmvocally ap- 
plicable to all governors of English colonies: any 
governor who failed either to take the oath or to 
perform the duties required by it was made liable to 
removal from office and to the forfeiture of £1000. 
Furthermore, the choice of governor in the char- 
tered colonies was made subject to veto by the 
crown, although practically this clause was applied 
only in the proprietary governments. The naval 
officers appointed by colonial governors had also 
been found negligent, and were required, hence- 
forth, to give security to the commissioner of cus- 
toms in England. Complaints having been made 
of the unsatisfactory sureties accepted in the colo- 
nies, all sureties were thereafter to be persons of 
good financial standing, resident in the colonies. 
Randolph's correspondence had laid special stress 
upon the part taken by Scotchmen in the illegal 
trade: they were said to have used forged certifi- 
cates, and to have escaped punishment for illegal 
acts through the sympathy of fellow-countrymen 
on the trial juries. More stringent measures were 
therefore adopted for the suppression of Scotch 
and other alien traders, and it was provided that 
jury service in cases arising under the trade and 
revenue laws should be limited to natives of Eng- 




land and Wales, Ireland, and the plantations. A 
few years later, however, the act of tinion placed 
Scotchmen on the same footing with Englishmen.^ 

The leading principle which underlies the various 
provisions of the act of 1696 is the bringing of 
colonial administration, so far as it affected the 
navigation acts, into harmony with the system of 
the mother-countr}'. This principle was asserted as 
regards colonial legislation by the formal declaration 
that all colonial laws at variance with the naviga- 
tion acts were null and void. Vessels in the colo- 
nies were subjected to the regulations, as to searches 
and seizures, which were already in force at home ; 
and all vessels were to be identified by a imiform 
system of registration.^ 

The act of 1696 was thus mainly an administra- 
tive measure intended to make more effective the 
principles of previous legislation; but it also de- 
termined one important point of construction. The 
question had been raised whether the exporter of 
enimierated articles, who paid the prescribed duties 
at a colonial port, was then free to take his goods 
wherever he pleased. It was now definitely settled 
that a bond must in all cases be given not to take 
the enumerated articles elsewhere than to England, 
Wales, or Berwick-upon-Tweed, or to some other 
English colony. There was also one important 

^7 and 8 "William III., chap, xxii.; 6 Anne, ciiap. xi., § 4; 
Cal of State Pap., Col., 1689-1692. pp. 656-660. 
^ 7 and 8 William III., chap.. xxii., §§5,8, 16. 



addition to the limitations imposed on colonial ex- 
ports: the colonists were now forbidden to send 
even the non-enumerated articles to Ireland or 
Scotland, except after the payment of duties in 

In later statutes of William and Anne there was 
a real development of the commercial policy in prin- 
ciple as well as in administration. This is shown 
first by additions to the list of enumerated articles, 
especially in 1705, when three important classes 
of colonial products were first enimierated: rice, 
which had become one of the staple exports of 
South Carolina; molasses from the West Indies; 
and naval stores of various kinds, including ship 
timber, could now be shipped only to English ports. ^ 

Another restrictive measure showed the growing 
jealousy of colonial manufactures, which was, of 
course, a logical result of the mercantilist system. 
In order to preserve colonial markets for English 
merchants, it was not enough to prevent the colo- 
nists from buying manufactured articles in foreign 
countries, they must also be prevented from supply- 
ing them to each other. During King William's 
War this subject was frequently referred to in 
the colonial correspondence ; for instance. Governor 
Nicholson of Virginia pointed out the danger, that 
the continued interruption of trade by war would 

^ 7 and 8 William III., §§ 7, 13; cf. Beer, Commercial Policy of 
England, 40. 

2 3 and 4 Anne, chap, iii., § 14, chap, ix,, § 6. 



compel the colonists to make their own clothing, as 
the New-Englanders were already doing to a con- 
siderable extent. The British point of view has 
hardly been better expressed than in the preamble 
of the woollens act of 1698, in which wool and its 
various manufactures were called ''the greatest 
and most profitable Commodities of this Kingdom 
on which the Value of Lands and the Trade of the 
Nation do Chiefly depend." The development of 
this trade in Ireland and the colonies was tending, 
it was thought, *'to sink the Value of Lands" and 
" to the mine of the Trade and the Woollen Manu- 
factures of this Realme," and hence the colonists were 
forbidden to carry wool or manufactures of wool 
from any one colony into any other. ^ 

Not all commercial legislation of this period was 
restrictive. Colonial officials were constantly trying 
to find means of diverting the colonists from in- 
dustrial enterprises injurious to the mother-cotm- 
try by encouraging others which were thought to 
be beneficial. Thus a statute of Queen Anne en- 
couraged colonial shipping by exempting colonial 
seamen from impressment in the royal navy.^ The 
industry, however, which the English government 
most desired to encourage was the production of 
naval stores, including hemp, pitch, tar, and masts; 

^ Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1689-1692, pp. 568, 569; Weeden, 
Econ. and Soc. Hist, of New England, I., 303-307, 387-394; 10 
William III., chap. xvi. 

2 Commission to Board of Trade, in A^. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col, 
Hist., IV., 145-148; 6 Anne, chap. Ixiv,, § 9. 


and this interest was stimulated by the wars of 
William and Anne, in which the sea power was so 
important a factor. Hitherto, the Baltic countries 
had been the important source of supply for naval 
stores, but this trade was now being conducted on 
unfavorable terms and was at best precarious. The 
resources of the colonies were therefore carefully in- 
quired into; and finally, after a long period of 
discussion, Parliament took definite action in the 
statute of 1705. This act, as has been noted, re- 
stricted the export of naval stores by listing them 
among the enumerated articles; it also reserved 
trees of a certain size for the royal navy, with 
severe penalties for cutting by unauthorized per- 
sons. These restrictions were offset, however, by 
bounties on the importation of naval stores pro- 
duced in the colonies, and this encouragement of 
colonial industry became a settled part of British 

The measures already noted may all be regarded 
as logical developments from the earHer acts of 
trade; a few others deserve attention because they 
show the broadening scope of parliamentary legis- 
lation for the colonies — especially the piracy act 
of 1700, the currency act of 1707, and the post- 
office act of 1 7 10. 

The piracy act was an attempt to remedy a 
serious evil which it was felt had not been prop- 

^ 3 and 4 Anne, chap. ix. ; Lord, Industrial Experiments in 
the Engl. Cols., pt. ii. 



erly dealt with by the colonies, and for which the 
old statute of Henry VIII. was no longer found 
adequate. The colonial governments, especially 
those which still retained their charters, were criti- 
cised for failure to enact suitable legislation and 
for their toleration of pirates within their juris- 
diction. Under these circumstances, the act of 
1700 provided that in the future piracy and other 
felonies on the high seas might be tried in the colo- 
nies by special courts constituted by commissions 
from the crown. If any governor refused to com- 
ply with the provisions of this act, such a refusal 
was to constitute a forfeiture of the chartered rights 
of the government to which he belonged.^ 

The conditions which gave rise to the currency 
act of 1707 can be only briefly considered here. 
During the reign of William III. the problems of 
coinage and currency were conspicuous in the poli- 
tics both of the mother-country and the colonies. 
The colonial situation was especially difficult, for 
coin of any kind was scarce, and English sterling 
money was hardly current at all. The most com- 
mon coins in the colonies were the Spanish "pieces 
of eight," which have been called "the original of 
the American ' dollar.' " The "piece of eight" was 
not, however, a fixed standard either in weight or 
commercial value as measured in sterling money. 

^ Cal. of State Pap., Col., i689-i692,pp. 674; 1693-1696, p. 114; 
Report of Board of Trade, in Penn-Logan Correspondence, I., 380 ; 
n William III., chap. vii. 



One of the charges made against the chartered 
colonies was that by raising and lowering the value 
of coins, as well as by various other methods, they 
tended greatly to the undermining the trade of the 
other plantations." William Penn, in his Sugges- 
tions Respecting the Plantations, presented to the 
home government in 1700, said that the value of 
pieces of eight varied from 45. 6d., in Maryland, 
to js. Sd., in the neighboring colony of Pennsyl- 
vania, and he urged the desirability of a single fixed 

Such a standard was attempted in 1704 through 
a proclamation of Queen Anne, which fixed within 
certain limits the ratio between standard foreign 
coins and sterling. This royal order proved ineffec- 
tive, and in 1707 Parliament gave to the proclama- 
tion the force of a statute, imposing penalties on 
persons who took foreign coins at a rate exceeding 
the legal ratio; and this act was specifically de- 
clared applicable to the chartered colonies as well 
as to the royal governments.^ 

In the case of the post-office also, there was, first, 
a period of separate colonial action, followed by the 
exercise of prerogative, and finally by the inter- 
vention of Parliament. Before the revolution of 
1689 postal arrangements in the colonies had been 
left to the colonists themselves, and the results 

^Weeden, Econ. and Soc. Hist, of New England, I., 383-387; 
Penn-Logan Correspcrndence, I., 380; N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. 
Hist., IV., 757. 2 6 Anne, chap. Ivii. 


were meagre. In 1692, Thomas Neale received 
from William and Mary a patent authorizing him 
to establish post-offices in the American colonies; 
and he proceeded to appoint Andrew Hamilton, a 
New Jersey colonist, as his deputy in America. 
Hamilton then secured the co-operation of several 
of the colonial assemblies, which passed laws regu- 
lating the rates of postage. His patent, however, 
was to expire in twenty-one years, and by that time 
Parliament was ready to take action. The act of 
1 7 10 provided for "Chief Offices" in New York 
and elsewhere ; fixed the rates of postage within the 
colonies, as well as in the mother-country; and, with 
a few exceptions, limited the carrying of mails to the 
postmaster - general and his deputies. Under the 
operation of this law postal facilities were gradual- 
ly extended from New England and the middle 
colonies into the south.* 

One of the declared purposes of the new law was 
to raise a war revenue, and it was therefore enacted 
that a weekly payment of £700 should be turned into 
the royal treasury. The New-Englanders seem to 
have made no public objection to the revenue feat- 
ure of the law, and though some Virginians at first 
objected on the ground that Parliament could not 
tax them without the consent of the general assem- 
bly, the opposition soon died away.* 

* Woolley, Early Hist, of the Col. Post-Office; 9 Anne, chap. xi. 
2 Palfrey, New England, IV., 327-332; Spotswood, Official 
Letters, II., 280. 

VOL. VI. — 5 



The constitutional significance of the colonial 
statutes of William and Anne may easily be over- 
looked if they are considered individually. In the 
main, they took the form of restrictions upon colo- 
nial enterprise, but sometimes, as in the bounties 
on naval stores, they aimed to stimulate it when 
directed along acceptable lines. Taken as a whole, 
they mark the increasing importance in colonial life 
of the political control exercised by the mother- 



EVERY step in the extension of legislative con- 
trol increased the importance of administra- 
tive organization. Existing agencies were strength- 
ened and new ones developed, until, finally, a radical 
reorganization of the colonial constitutions was de- 
manded, which could only be accomplished by the 
action of Parliament itself. 

In the shaping of administrative policy the per- 
sonal action of King William and Queen Anne 
seems, on the whole, a factor of minor importance. 
William III. was much absorbed in the politics of 
continental Europe, and had little time for colonial 
affairs, though his influence was in general exerted 
to uphold the royal prerogative. He consented re- 
luctantly to triennial parliaments at home, and he 
opposed the triennial election of assemblies in 
America. In one instance, when Parliament at- 
tempted to organize a council of trade under its 
own control, the king exerted himself to defeat the 
project.^ Queen Anne's policy was still more large- 

1 Chalmers, Revolt, I., 294, n.; Cobbett, Parliamentary His* 
tory, v., 977, 




ly that of her ministers, though her colonial ap- 
pointments were sometimes influenced by personal 
preferences. William Penn was a man of experi- 
ence in such matters, and he wrote to his secretary 
in 1703 warning him not to submit even to royal 
orders when at variance with law, adding, Queens 
never read, as well as Kings, what they sign; they 
are signed upon the credit of committees or secre- 
taries." ' 

In general, then, the colonial policy of the crown 
was the poHcy of its official advisers. Matters of 
importance were determined by the Privy Council, 
composed, for practical purposes, of the king's 
ministers of state. Details were managed by in- 
dividual ministers, by subordinate officials, or by 
administrative committees or boards. Government 
by homogeneous party ministries was not yet es- 
tablished, and the ministries were usually com- 
posite, including both Whigs and Tories, so that 
one of the secretaries of state might be a Tory 
and the other a Whig. Generally, one party or the 
other had a preponderance, but sometimes the at- 
tempt was made to keep an even balance. In the 
minds of party politicians colonial politics took a 
subordinate place, and it could rarely be said that 
any particular ministry had its own distinctive 
colonial policy. In the main, the ministries of this 
period seem to have accepted the traditions of 
colonial administration as they found them.. 
^ Penn-Logan Correspondence, I., 247, 248. 


The ministers most steadily concerned with co- 
lonial affairs were the two secretaries of state, with 
whom the colonial governors were expected to cor- 
respond. At first there was no definite assignment 
of colonial business to either one of them, but dur- 
ing the reign of William III. one secretary usually, 
at any given time, gave special attention to colonial 
correspondence. Two of these secretaries were the 
Duke of Shrewsbury, a Whig, and the Earl of Not- 
tingham, a Tory, both statesmen of great promi- 
nence and influence. 

During the reign of Anne, and afterwards, Ameri- 
can affairs were regularly transacted by the sec- 
retary of state for the southern department, an 
office held, during by far the larger part of that 
reign, by prominent Tories. Harley, Earl of Ox- 
ford, served for three years, and St. John, Viscount 
Bolingbroke, during his service of about four years, 
took a considerable interest in American affairs. 
None of these ministers can, however, be credited 
with such an influence in the development of co- 
lonial policy as has been ascribed to Clarendon and 
Shaftesbury during the reign of Charles II. 

The most important work in colonial adminis- 
tration was done by executive boards, some of 
which were restricted to specific departments of 
colonial administration: thus the commissioners of 
customs were specially charged with the enforce- 
ment of the navigation acts ; and the commissioners 
of admiralty transacted a considerable amount of 



colonial business, especially in time of war. Much 
the most important executive boards, however, 
were the Committee of the Privy Council on Trade 
and Plantations, and its successor, the Board of 
Commissioners for Trade and Plantations, or, more 
briefly, the Board of Trade. 

In 1689 the old Committee of Trade and Planta- 
tions, instituted during the reign of Charles II., was 
reorganized by a new commission, still composed 
of the leading ministers of state, many of whom had 
been in the service of Charles II., and who were, in 
general, disposed to adhere to the colonial policies 
of that reign. This committee shaped in large meas- 
ure the constitutional adjustments in the colonies 
after the revolution; and the navigation act of 1696 
was in full harmony with their views. Among the 
merchants, however, there was a strong feeling that 
the government was not adequately protecting their 
interests, and in the parliamentary session of 1695- 
1696 it was proposed to organize a new board whose 
members should be nominated by Parliament. The 
attempt failed, and in May, 1696, the king himself 
organized the Board of Commissioners for Trade 
and Plantations. The new board was not a mere 
committee of the Privy Council, for, though the 
chief ministers of state were ex officio members, 
they were not expected to give regular attendance; 
the real work was generally done, as was intended, 
by a small group of non-ministerial members. In 
the first commission the number of such members 



was eight, including John Locke, who had been long 
and prominently associated with colonial affairs, 
and William Blathwayte, who had been secretary 
of the Committee of Trade during the later years of 
its history/ 

The work of the new board was similar to that 
of the old committee ; they were expected first of all 
to guard the commercial interests of the mother- 
country; colonial trade and government were to be 
closely investigated, and means were to be devised 
for guiding colonial enterprise in channels beneficial 
to the mother-country. During the earlier years of 
its history the Board of Trade carried on investiga- 
tions with energy, reporting from time to time to 
the king, and occasionally also to the houses of 
Parliament; their reports or representations " con- 
tained statements of fact, and also proposed new 
lines of policy, legislative as well as administrative. 
They draughted the instructions to the royal govern- 
ors, suggesting from time to time desirable changes ; 
they made nominations to fill vacancies in the co- 
lonial service, and were entitled to receive regular 
reports from the various royal governments. Colo- 
nial legislation and the administration of justice 
and finance were also carefully supervised. In per- 
forming their functions they were entitled to the 

* Commission in N. Y. Docs. Rel to Col. Hist. IV., 145-148; 
Chalmers, Revolt, I., chap, xviii; Cobbett, Parliamentary His- 
tory, 977; cf. Andrews, Colonial Self - Government (Am. Nation, 
v.), chaps, ii., xvii. 



legal advice of the king's counsel, and could compel 
the attendance of witnesses. 

Their actual authority, however, was compara- 
tively slight. In matters of real importance, they 
could make "representations," not final decisions; 
they could nominate officers, but not appoint them; 
they could remonstrate with delinquent governors, 
but could not finally remove or control them. 
Under these circumstances, the real influence of 
the board depended on maintaining vital relations 
with the leading ministers, especially the secretaries 
of state. During the period of William and Anne, 
the board undoubtedly influenced to a considera- 
ble extent the policy of the government, but even 
then many important recommendations were not 
carried out.^ 

Some administrative supervision was also exer- 
cised by the House of Commons and the House of 
Lords through formal inquiries, and by recommenda- 
tions to the executive authorities. Two instances of 
intervention by the House of Lords during this 
period are noteworthy. After the passage of the 
navigation act of 1696, courts of admiralty were 
established in the colonies by the king soon after 
they had been recommended by the House of Lords. 
In 1706 the peers called upon the queen to pro- 
tect the dissenters of South Carolina from a pro- 
vincial law requiring an ecclesiastical test for mem- 

»Egerton, Short Hist, of Col. Policy, 116; Report of Board 
of Trade (1721), in N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., V., 627-630, 



bership in the assembly, and a royal order was 
issued accordingly. The revolution of 1689 had 
greatly strengthened the parHamentary element in 
the constitution, and the proposed formation of a 
council of commerce to be nominated by ParHa- 
ment shows a tendency to encroach even upon the 
field of naturally executive functions/ 

An important method of control during this 
period was the super\'ision of colonial legislation. 
In the royal governments the right of the crown 
to disallow provincial laws had been recognized 
from the outset; but fifty years elapsed after the 
revocation of the Virginia charter before another 
royal province was fully organized on the continent. 
In the mean time a large number of charters had 
been issued to proprietary and self-governing colonies 
without any provision for a royal veto; but in 1681 
the Pennsylvania charter showed the development 
of an imperialistic conception by requiring even 
that proprietary province to submit its legislation 
for royal approval. During the reign of James 11. , 
imperial control of legislation was carried to a vio- 
lent extreme by the abolition of assemblies in the 
new royal provinces, and it was not until after the 
revolution that the royal veto became a normal 
factor in the colonial system. By 1692 the right 
of disallowance existed in the five royal provinces 
of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, 
Maryland, and Virginia, and in the proprietary 
^Chalmers, Revolt, I., 273; .V. C. Col. Records, I., 642. 



province of Pennsylvania. In 1702 New Jersey- 
became a royal government and was subjected to 
the same restriction. Attempts were made to apply 
the principle in other colonies also : Rhode Island 
laws were sent over for examination; in 1705 a 
Connecticut law banishing Quakers was disallowed; 
and in 1706 a royal order in coimcil annulled two 
South Carolina statutes. The legality of the royal 
orders in these cases was doubtful, and the right 
to veto Connecticut laws was subsequently dis- 
claimed by the law-officers of the crown; but the 
earlier action is important as showing the general 
trend of colonial policy.^ 

The rules regarding the exercise of the royal 
veto were not the same in all the colonies. Under 
the Massachusetts and Pennsylvania charters, the 
action of the crown had to be declared within a 
limited period. In the royal provinces, generally, 
it might be declared at any time. Colonial laws 
sent over by the governors were examined by the 
Board of Trade, which frequently took the advice 
of the attorney and solicitor general. Acts dis- 
approved by the board were ordinarily repealed by 
the Privy Council.^ 

During the decade immediate^ following the 
English revolution the prerogative of disallowance 
was vigorously exercised. In Massachusetts an 

^R. I. Records, III., 388; Conn. Col. Records, IV., 546; Chal- 
mers, Opinions (ed. of 1858), 339. 

2 Cf. Massachusetts Bay, Acts and Resolves, I., passim. 



elective assembly found itself obliged for the first 
time to accept the constitutional limitations of a 
royal province. Public sentiment in the colony 
demanded the retention, so far as possible, of usages 
which had developed during the era of self-govern- 
ment. On the other hand, the home government 
desired to limit closely the concessions granted in 
the new charter, and to bring colonial institu- 
tions into harmony with imperial policy and Eng- 
lish law. This conflict is well illustrated by the 
action of the home government on the legislation 
of 1692, the first enacted under the new charter, 
including a ntmiber of what may be called funda- 
mental statutes. One was a law continuing in gen- 
eral terms the local laws of the colony ; another pro- 
vided for the organization of a judicial system ; and 
a third took the form of a bill of rights. These and 
twelve others were disallowed by the crown in 
1695, sometimes for lack of definiteness and some- 
times because of supposed encroachment on the 
rights of the crown or conflict with the laws of 
England. During the next five years the struggle 
continued. The general court made some unsuc- 
cessful efforts to adjust their measures to the views 
of the Board of Trade, but there was no year of 
legislation from 1692 to 1699 in which one or more 
acts were not ultimately disallowed. In the end, 
a practical adjustment seems to have been reached 
and disallowance became less frequent.^ 

^ Massachusetts Bay, Acts and Resolves, I,, passim. 



The treatment of New York was somewhat Hke 
that of Massachusetts, but less drastic. The first 
assembly passed, in 1691, a general declaration of 
constitutional rights and privileges, which was dis- 
allowed in 1697 on the recommendation of the 
Board of Trade, one reason being that undue privi- 
leges were given to the assembly. In the first year 
of Queen Anne, six New York acts were disallowed 
almost immediately after their passage, and several 
others were vetoed during the later years of the 
reign. ^ 

In Pennsylvania the proprietary government was 
severely criticised for its failure to transmit laws 
for approval, but during the early years of Queen 
Anne a large number of acts were received by the 
Board of Trade. About fifty of these, covering a 
wide range of subjects, were disallowed by order in 
council in 1706, though Penn congratulated him- 
self that many others had received the royal ap- 
proval. In Virginia and Maryland, also, a number 
of acts were disallowed.^ 

The reasons assigned for disallowance vary widely. 
In general, however, the prerogative was used to 
keep the legislation of the colony in harmony with 
somewhat conservative views of the royal preroga- 
tive ; with the English common law ; with the stat- 

'N. Y. Colonial Lan's, I., 244, 476; .V. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. 
Hist., IV., 263. 

2 Vsi., Statutes at Large, II. , passim; Penn-Logan Correspondence, 
II., no; Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1693-1696, pp. 31, 38; Heiiing, 
Statutes, III., 344, 404, 502. 


utes applicable to the colonies; and, lastly, with 
British economic interests. To a certain extent 
the right of disallowance was evaded, as, for exam- 
ple, by the passage of temporary laws, but this 
practice was forbidden by royal instructions. In- 
deed, one striking result of the experience of the 
Board of Trade with objectionable statutes was the 
gradual increase, in the governor's instructions, of 
articles forbidding his approval of certain kinds of 
laws. Some acts could only be passed with a so- 
called suspending clause postponing enforcement 
until the law had been approved by the crown.* 

The harmony of English and colonial law de- 
pended very much in practice on the maintenance 
of some system of judicial control. During the 
reign of William III. this control was extended 
partly by the creation of new courts in America, 
acting under royal commissions and including 
within their jturisdiction chartered colonies as well 
as the royal governments. The piracy courts or- 
ganized -under the act of 1700 have already been 
noted. Soon after the passage of the navigation 
act of 1696 courts of admiralty were instituted in 
order to secure a stricter enforcement of the laws 
of trade than could be expected from the colonial 
coiirts and juries. Admiralty judges were ap- 
pointed for various colonies or groups of colonies, 

^Instructions to Hunter (N. Y., 1709), in N. Y. Docs. Rel. to 
Col. Hist., v., 124-143; cf. with instructions to Sloughter (1690), 
ibid., III., 685-691. 


some of whom were men of strongly imperial views, 
notably Robert Quarry, one of the first appointed 
in the middle colonies. The new courts were ex- 
ceedingly unpopular; their trial of cases without 
juries was offensive, and they were also charged 
with encroaching upon the jurisdiction of the com- 
mon-law courts. Notwithstanding the colonial op- 
position, the new policy was maintained.^ 

The home government also sought to control the 
administration of justice by securing to individuals 
in the colonies the right of appeal to the Privy 
Council. This right was not specifically provided 
for in the earlier charters, but it appears in the Duke 
of York's patent of 1664 and in Penn's charter of 
1 68 1. Like the royal veto, it first assumed impor- 
tance in the closing years of the seventeenth century.^ 
The instructions to the royal governors insisted 
upon the allowance of appeals to the Privy Council, 
and the proprietary colonies were sharply criticised 
for refusing to permit them. The right was as- 
serted even in colonies where it was not specifically 
secured by charter. During the reign of William 

III. , the Privy Council, after being informed that 
their right of appeal had been denied by a Con- 
necticut court, declared that it was "the inherent 
right'* of the crown *'to receive and determine ap- 

^ Chalmers, Revolt, I., 273, 284-288; Palfrey, New England, 

IV. , 163; Penn-Logan Correspondence, I., 35, 66; Smith, South 
Carolina, 147-156; ChaXmQvs, Opinions (ed. of 1858), 500-502. 

2 Cf. Osgood, Am. Cols, in the Seventeenth Century, II., 10, 


peals" from all the colonies in America. In later 
years several Rhode Island and Connecticut cases 
were heard on appeal by the Privy Council. There 
was some difficulty in enforcing this right even in 
the royal provinces, and some provincial statutes 
were disallowed for failure to secure it fully.* 

During this period special provision was made for 
the trial of governors guilty of misconduct in office. 
In 1699 an act of Parliament was passed, declaring 
that colonial governors who had hitherto considered 
themselves legally accoimtable neither in their 
provinces nor at home, might be tried in the Court 
of King's Bench.^ 

These measures of administrative control brought 
out more sharply the abnormal position of the char- 
tered colonies. Their legal exemption from control in 
most matters made it difficult for the crown to 
exercise even that authority to which it was fairly 
entitled. Especially was this true in the self-gov- 
erning colonies, where every department of gov- 
ernment was controlled by the people themselves. 
Governors chosen from year to year served more 
zealously the people who elected them than a dis- 
tant authority whose control was somewhat fitful. 
It was thought also that the irregularities and ex- 

^N. Y. Docs. Rel io Col. Hist., III., 688; Penn-Logan Corre- 
spondence, I., 25, 379; Hazeltine, Appeals from Colonial Courts 
(Am. Hist. Assoc., Report, 1894, pp. 299-350); N. C. Col. 
Records, II., 161 et seq. ; Massachusetts Bay, Acts and Resolves, 
I., 144. 2 II William III., chap. xii. 


ceptional privileges of the chartered colonies tended 
to demoralize the people of the royal governments. 
There was consequently almost constant agitation 
on the part of the official party in America and 
England for the resumption or regulation of the 

During King William's War special emphasis was 
laid upon consolidation for military purposes. The 
royal governors of Massachusetts and New York 
were authorized to command the militia in Rhode 
Island, Connecticut, and the Jerseys, but these com- 
missions were vigorously resisted; and the crown 
finally accepted a compromise which asserted in sub- 
stance simply the right to exact certain quotas of 
men when needed for the common defence, author- 
izing command of the militia as a whole only in 
case of threatened invasion. In 1696 the Board of 
Trade recommended the appointment of a captain- 
general with the right to command the militia of all 
the colonies ; but the war ended without the project 
being carried fully into effect, though a step was 
taken in that direction by the commission to the Earl 
of Bellomont in 1697. Bellomont was made gov- 
ernor in each of the three royal provinces of Massa- 
chusetts, New Hampshire, and New York, and was 
also given the command of the militia in Connecticut 
and Rhode Island. This was not, however, a real 
consolidation of provinces, for each province retained 
its distinct administration, and there were still three 

* Letter of Quarry, in Ames, Pa. and the English Govt., 8-14. 


assemblies to be reckoned with. The combination 
proved imwieldy and soon fell apart, but the policy 
was not wholly abandoned. During the first third 
of the eighteenth century the two royal govern- 
ments of New England had the same governor ; and 
the governors of New York also held commissions 
for New Jersey.^ 

The need of consolidation and union was recog- 
nized by many serious students of colonial problems. 
William Penn submitted, about 1697, his famous 
proposal for a colonial congress consisting of repre- 
sentatives from each province; and a little later 
Robert Livingston, of New York, proposed the con- 
solidation of the colonies into three provinces, and 
a meeting of commissioners from each province at 
Albany to provide for the common defence. For 
projects of this kind, however, the colonists in 
general were not yet ready 

During this period royal control of the proprietary 
governors was somewhat strengthened. The navi- 
gation act of 1696 required that proprietary govern- 
ors should be approved by the crown, and after 
some delay the rule was enforced. The Board of 
Trade also insisted that security should be given 
for their observance of the navigation acts. Thus 
the proprietary governors became in a measure royal 
officers. Such regulations could not, however, be 

^N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., IV., 29-31, 69-73, 227- 
230, 266; R. I. Col. Records, III., 288-292. 
^N. y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., IV., 296, 874. 

VOL. VI. — 6 


enforced upon the annually elected governors of 
Connecticut and Rhode Island.^ 

The most ardent advocates of imperial control 
could be content only with the final overthrow of 
all the chartered governments. In 1691 Governor 
Nicholson expressed his hope that "their Majesties 
will send their own Governors to all the col- 
onies," and royal agents like Randolph and Quar- 
ry made similar recommendations. Finally, the 
policy was definitely adopted by the Board of 

Of all the proprietary colonies, the most vulnerable 
were the Jerseys, in which the rights of government 
had never any foundation in strict law.^ On the 
eve of the revolution the proprietors agreed to sur- 
render them to the crown, and the Jerseys were in- 
cluded in the "greater New England" of 1688. 
After the revolution the proprietors of East and 
West Jersey resumed their governments, but they 
were weakened, not merely by the hostile criticism 
of royal officers, but by dissatisfaction among the 
colonists. In 1702 the rights of government were 
again surrendered; the transfer was now accepted, 
and in the same year Governor Cornbury, of New 

^Rivers, South Carolina, 443; Randolph Papers, 284; Penn- 
Logan Correspondence , I., 25, 270; A/'. C Col. Records, I., 476, 557. 

2 Cal of State Pap., Col, 1689-1692, p. 568; Randolph Papers, 
v., 263-273; Ames, Pa. and the English Govt.', Penn-Logan Cor- 
respondence, I., 380. 

2 Cf. Osgood, Am. Cols, in the Seventeenth Century, 11., 169- 


York, received his commission as the first royal 
governor of the reunited province of New Jer- 

Elsewhere chartered privileges were more vigor- 
ously defended. During the early years of William 
III. there was some uncertainty as to the right of 
the crown to appoint governors in chartered colo- 
nies without a judicial abrogation of the charter. 
Chief -Justice Holt gave his opinion, in 1690, that 
the king might do so in case of "necessity," and a 
royal government was accordingly inaugurated in 
Maryland.^ A similar course was taken in 1692 
when Governor Fletcher received a royal commis- 
sion as governor of Pennsylvania, but Penn was 
determined not to submit to action which seemed 
to him illegal. He sent his warning to Fletcher, 
and encouraged his followers in the province to 
keep up a kind of passive resistance. The result was 
his restoration, in 1694, to the exercise of his pro- 
prietary rights, although the attacks on his govern- 
ment continued. Rhode Island and Connecticut 
were severely criticised by the royal governors for 
tolerating irregularities of various kinds, and it was 
proposed during Queen Anne's reign to send royal 
governors to each of these colonies, at least during 
the war; but though the attorney-general and the 

^N. J. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., I,, 26, 369-373, 398-403, 448, 
452-461, 489; N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., III., 537. 

2 Chalmers, Opinions (ed. of 1858), 65; N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. 
Hist., III., d>^6\ IV., 33, no. 



solicitor-general gave a favorable opinion, the prop- 
osition came to nothing.* 

The same lawyers declared, in 1706, that two 
recent acts of the South Carolina assembly, if defi- 
nitely approved by the proprietors, constituted a 
forfeiture of the charter, which might be annulled 
by judicial proceedings. Though the acts were an- 
nulled, the attack on the charter was dropped, part- 
ly because some of the proprietors were peers of 
the realm, whose privileges had to be cautiously 

After several years of discussion, the Board of 
Trade having become convinced that legislation was 
necessary, prepared, in ifoi, careful reports to the 
king and the House of Commons, reciting all the 
familiar charges against the chartered governments, 
and recommending that all the charters should 
be resumed to the Crown." They added their be- 
lief that "this cannot otherwise be well effected 
than by the legislative power of this kingdom." 
A bill was accordingly introduced into the House 
of Lords for the revocation of the colonial charters 
and the institution of royal governments in their 
place; but the bill, though read twice, was never 
passed. Immediately after the accession of Queen 
Anne the proposal was renewed by the board, but 
without result. In 1706 a bill was introduced in 
the House of Commons *' for the better Regulation " 

7. Col. Records, III., 385-388; IV., 12-16. 
* N. C. Col. Records, I., 642-644. 


of the charter governments, and after the Tory 
ministry came into power, in 1710, the problem was 
again seriously considered, especially by St. John, as 
secretary for the southern department/ 

It is difficult to explain wholly the failure of 
these attempts in the face of such vigorous recom- 
mendations from the Board of Trade. In some in- 
stances, the demands of other public business seem 
to have prevented action; apparently even among 
English ministers there was some scepticism as to 
the desirability of the policy. The colonists them- 
selves, through their agents, vigorously resisted the 
proposed measures, and were able to bring some 
strong influences to bear against them. This was 
particularly true of Penn, who for a time also acted 
as agent for Rhode Island. In the winter of 1704- 
1705, he wrote that by his interest alone he had been 
able to prevent " a scheme drawn to new model the 
colonies.'* The high spirit which characterized him 
at his best, comes out in another letter urging his 
secretary, Logan, to defend the rights of the prov- 
ince against encroachments : " I desire you to pluck 
up that English and Christian courage, to not suffer 
yourselves to be thus treated and put upon." 

Yet Penn himself was so much harassed by op- 
position in the province and by his financial troubles 

■ * Ames, Pa. and the English Govt. ,21,; Penn-Logan Correspond- 
ence, I., 78, 87, 380; N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., V., 255; N. C. 
Col. Records, I., 552-554; Kellogg, Am. Colonial Charter (Am. 
Hist. Assoc., Report, 1903, I.), chap. iv. 



that he was prepared to surrender his government 
on condition of obtaining satisfactory compensa- 
tion for himself and some safeguards for his fellow- 
Quakers in the colony. In February, 171 2, the 
Board of Trade recommended the acceptance of 
such an offer, and a bill for that purpose was intro- 
duced in the House of Commons. The bill failed, 
however, and Penn's heirs finally determined to 
hold the government.* 

The net result of twenty years' warfare on the 
colonial charters was, therefore, comparatively 
slight. The royal province of New Jersey had taken 
the place of two proprietary governments, but those 
of Pennsylvania, Delaware, and the Carolinas re- 
mained, together with the self-governing colonies of 
Connecticut and Rhode Island. 

Notwithstanding the limitations and failures of 
the imperialist movement, important results were 
accomplished: the legislative control of Parliament 
over the colonies was largely extended; provincial 
legislation was subjected to serious restraints; a 
system of appeals to the crown was organized ; and 
new courts were instituted independent of local 
control. Thus the great majority of the American 
colonists were brought under the control of a pro- 
vincial system which thirty years before had been 
distinctly exceptional. 

* Chalmers, Revolt, I., 380; Penn-Logan Correspondence, I., 
73, 112, 248, 354; R. I. Col. Records, IV., 64; Shepherd, Propri- 
etary Government in Pa., 540-544. 



ix seventeenth century shows a striking ten- 
dency towards uniformity in political thought and 
action. In the earlier period two strong influences 
had been at work to produce variation rather than 
uniformity; the first was the policy of proprietary 
or chartered colonization, which gave to each pro- 
prietor and each group of self-governing colonists 
the opportunity to modify the common English 
tradition according to their special needs and ideals ; 
the second was the geographical isolation of the 
various groups of settlers, which checked their inter- 
change of ideas and experiences with each other 
and with the mother - country. Great differences 
had resulted in institutions and in political issues. 
The practical politics of Massachusetts under its 
theocratic-republican constitution had little in com- 
mon with that of Virginia under the rule of Gov- 
ernor Berkeley or that of Maryland under the pro- 
prietary system. 

Gradually, however, the extension of imperial con- 

colonial life at the close of the 




trol limited the opportunity for political experiment. 
The provincial system was established in half of 
the colonies and the proprietary governors them- 
selves were held to a stricter accountability to the 
crown. Only the two small governments of Con- 
necticut and Rhode Island remained wholly out- 
side of the provincial system, and even they were 
troubled with appeals to the crown and acts of 
Parliament restraining their trade. The physical 
obstacles to colonial intercourse were still serious, 
but even these had been lessened. New settle- 
ments were gradually filling the intervening spaces, 
intercolonial trade was developing, and an inter- 
colonial postal system had been begun. The com- 
mon dangers of border warfare also forced the 
colonies into a rather grudging co-operation, and 
brought their leaders into more frequent contact 
with one another. Thus there arose a degree of tmi- 
formity which makes it possible to speak, not mere- 
ly of the politics of Massachusetts or Virginia, but 
of certain common tendencies which appear in the 
political life of the colonies as a whole, or at least 
of that large majority of them which had been 
brought under the provincial system. 

These general principles of colonial politics can- 
not be understood without a study of the provincial 
constitution, using the term in its broadest sense 
to include proprietary as w^ell as royal governments. 
The essential feature of this system was a governor 
appointed either by the king or by a proprietor, 


except in those comparatively rare cases in which 
the proprietor governed the province in person. In 
any case, the governor represented the principle of 
external control, an authority outside of the com- 
munity itself. His powers and duties were defined 
by his commission and instructions, issued by this 
same external authority and revocable at will. By 
his side stood the cotmcillors, who, except in Mas- 
sachusetts, derived their powers from the king or 
proprietor, and thus like him represented the prin- 
ciple of external control. Generally speaking, the 
home government took the governor's advice in the 
appointment and dismissal of councillors, so that he 
could depend upon their political support. There 
were, however, frequent exceptions, and often, as in 
Virginia, the cotmcillors belonged to a kind of local 
aristocracy whose point of view differed from that 
of the governor. 

The only royal province in which councillors 
were not appointed by the crown was Massachusetts. 
There they were annually chosen by joint ballot of 
the representatives and councillors, but the gov- 
ernor had the right of veto, which was frequently 
exercised dtrring the first twenty years of royal gov- 
ernment. Aggressive leaders of the popular party 
were thus kept out of the council, and members 
once elected were disposed to conciliate the gov- 

The governor, either independently or with the 
coimcil, was intrusted with the ordinary executive 



powers of appointment, military command, finan- 
cial control, and, with some limitations, that of 
pardon. The governor and councillors also influ- 
enced the administration of justice through their 
appointment of judges and the direct exercise of 
certain judicial functions. These functions were 
not the same in all the provinces, but in the ordi- 
nary royal governments the governor and council 
served as a court of appeal in civil cases. Generally 
speaking, then, the executive and judicial powers 
were intrusted to representatives of external au- 

In the legislative department alone was the prin- 
ciple of popular representation generally recog- 
nized by the authorities in England. T / the close 
of the seventeenth centur}^ ever\^ province had its 
representative assembly, known by different names 
in different c Monies. In Virginia, it was the house 
of burgesses ; in South Carolina, the commons house 
of assembly; and in Massachusetts, the house of 
representatives. These different names, however, 
stood for essentially the same thing, an assem- 
bly of representatives, not of the whole people, 
but of the owners of property. The policy of the 
crown was to restrict representation to freeholders, 
as in the English counties, but this was not gener- 
ally done.^ 

After a long period of controversy, two rights 
had been finally conceded to these representative 

^ Bishop, Elections in the Colonies, 69 et seq. 


bodies. They had a right, shared with the council, 
to initiate legislation; and no taxes could be laid 
by any other department of the provincial gov- 
ernment without their consent. The legislative 
power of the representatives was, however, seriously 
limited by at least two checks: in all the provinces 
(except Pennsylvania after 1701) measures enacted 
by the representatives required the consent of the 
coimcil acting as an upper house; in proprietary 
provinces acts had to be further approved by the 
proprietors or their representatives. In the royal 
governments acts without a suspending clause be- 
came law on the approval of the governor, though 
still subject to disallowance by the crown, a con- 
dition which, as already observed, was also required 
in Pennsylvania. 

The fundamental fact of provincial politics after 
the revolution of 1689 is the conflict between the 
'provincial governor and the representative assem- 
bly. The governor represented, first, the monarch- 
ical idea of prerogative, and, secondly, the prin- 
ciple of imperial control, whether exercised by 
king or Parliament. The assembly, on the other 
hand, stood not merely for the representative prin- 
ciple in government, but also for distinctly local 
interests. The policy of the colonial assemblies at 
its worst expressed a narrow and particularistic 
spirit, disregarding sound considerations of national 
or imperial policy ; at its best it stood for the vital 
principle of local self-government, and for the pro- 


tection of legitimate American interests as against 
a narrow British policy. 

The popular party in America was stimulated by 
the course of politics in the mother - country. In 
1689 the representative principle triumphed over 
prerogative, and the transfer of the crown was fol- 
lowed by the enactment of great fundamental stat- 
utes like the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settle- 
ment, which secured more completely than ever 
before the privileges of Parliament and the personal 
liberty of the subject. Among other measures at 
first rejected by William III., but finally forced 
upon him, were the triennial election of parliaments 
and the exclusion of office-holders from the House 
of Commons, The Commons also asserted more 
strictly their control of the national finances at the 
expense both of the king and the House of Lords. 
Large sums were given for the conduct of the for- 
eign war, but the objects of expenditure were de- 
fined in detail ; and, as already noted, an unsuccess- 
ful effort was made to establish a parliamentary 
council of trade. On the whole, the reigns of 
William and Anne show a clear though uneven ad- 
vance towards the modern system of cabinet gov- 
ernment, which practically enables a committee of 
the House of Commons to exercise the most im- 
portant powers of the crown. 

The provincial governments reproduced on a 
smaller scale the constitution of the mother-country. 
As the governor felt the responsibility of maintain- 


ing within the province the prerogative of the 
crown, so the assembly found support for its privi- 
leges and encouragement for its aspirations in the 
example of the English House of Commons. The 
colonial journals reproduce in surprising detail the 
parliamentary conflicts of the mother - country. 
Nevertheless, these ambitions of the colonial as- 
semblies met with little sympathy from British 
statesmen of either school ; the colonial prerogatives 
of the crown were identified with the political su- 
premacy of England, and therefore had the sup- 
port of English Whigs as well as English Tories. 

Another influence favorable to the popular party 
in America was the experience of the chartered 
colonies: where, as in Massachusetts, a royal govern- 
ment was established over colonists who had been 
accustomed to almost complete independence, the 
freer practice of the earlier days established prece- 
dents which the crown could not wholly disregard. 
In provinces without exceptional privileges of self- 
government, the example of the chartered colonies 
exerted a strong and, from the royalist point of 
view, a demoralizing influence. In the surviving 
proprietary colonies the active hostility of the 
home government contributed to weaken the au- 
thority of the governors as against the popular 
party. This was notably the case in South Caro- 
lina, where the colonists appealed successfully to 
the crown against obnoxious measures of the pro- 
prietors. In 1702 the secretary of Pennsylvania 


wrote that the surrender of the Jerseys, taken to- 
gether with other difficulties, had made ''this gov- 
ernment too precarious to be called one." From 
such governments it was comparatively easy for 
the assemblies to extort concessions. Nowhere was 
the spirit of self-government so strongly intrenched 
as in New England and Pennsylvania, and during 
the eighteenth century their example was especially 
dreaded by the prerogative party. Thus the dis- 
tinctly American traditions of the self-governing 
colonies combined with the parliamentary usages of 
the mother-country to strengthen the representa- 
tive element in the provincial constitution.^ 

Among the most interesting illustrations of the 
similarity of English and colonial politics after the 
revolution are the statutes or charters proposed in 
the principal royal governments. Thus, in 1691, 
the Virginia assembly instructed its agent in Eng- 
land to secure, if possible, a new charter confirm- 
ing that of Charles II. and all previous charters 
of liberties and privileges. The burgesses asked, 
among other things, specific recognition of the ex- 
clusive right of the assembly to levy taxes, and of 
the "ancient method" of allowing appeals from the 
general judicial court to the general assembly. In 
the same year the New York assembly passed an act 
stating the Rights and Priviledges of their Majes- 
ties Subjects inhabiting within their Province of New 
York." This act set forth certain privileges of the 
^ Penn-Logan Correspondence, I., 121. 


representative assembly and certain securities for 
personal and property rights/ A year later, the first 
provincial assembly of Massachusetts passed an act 
" setting forth general privileges ;" and in 1694 a sup- 
plementary act with special reference to the consti- 
tutional privileges of the house of representatives. 
Under these acts the people of the province were 
declared exempt from all taxes except those levied 
by the general court, and the house of represent- 
atives was declared to have "an undoubted right 
to all the liberties and priviledges of an English 
assembly." The Maryland assembly took a some- 
what similar course by inserting in the church act 
of 1696 a clause asserting that the people of the 
province ''shall enjoy all their Rights and Liberties 
according to the Laws and Statutes of the King- 
dom of England" on all points on which there was 
no provision in provincial statutes. Besides these 
general declarations, a nimiber of acts were passed 
in the colonies affirming particular rights of the 
subject. Thus Massachusetts and South Carolina 
specifically asserted the privileges of the writ of 
habeas corpus.^ 

The attitude of the home government towards 
these colonial imitations of the English Bill of 
Rights is remarkable. All of the acts which have 

^ Cal of State Pap., Col., 1689-1692, pp. 453, 454; N. Y, 
Colonial Laws, I., 244, 

2 Massachusetts Bay, Acts and Resolves, I., 40, 95-99, 170; 
Mereness, Maryland, 438; McCrady, South Carolina under Pro- 
prietary Government , 247. 



been mentioned were disallowed. In one instance, 
there was a minor and somewhat technical defect; 
in another, the act was declared imnecessary; and 
in another, the objections were not clearly stated. 
Two disallowances were particularly noteworthy: 
the New York act of 1691 was similar to that of 
1683, which had been disallowed by James II., and 
the reasons given in the two cases were much alike. 
The later act was condemned by the Board of 
Trade, because it gave to the representatives "too 
great and unreasonable privileges"; because the 
exemption from the quartering of soldiers contained 
"several large and doubtful expressions." The 
Massachusetts act for the prevention of illegal im- 
prisonment was set aside on the ground that the 
privileges of the habeas corpus act of Charles II. 
had not as yet been granted in any of his majesty's 

The colonial assemblies resembled the English 
House of Commons in desiring greater freedom 
from executive control and influence, and hence 
measures resembling the acts for triennial parlia- 
ments and the exclusion of office-holders from the 
Commons were more or less successfully advocated 
in the colonies. In Massachusetts the charter of 
1 69 1 permitted annual elections; Penn granted the 
same privilege to his colonists in his "charter" of 
1701; and in both the Carolinas acts were passed 
for holding biennial elections ; the Virginia assembly 
asked that assemblies might be held at least once 


in two years; and in New Jersey, which under the 
proprietors had been accustomed to frequent elec- 
tions, the king was urged, though without success, 
to provide for triennial assemblies. So far as such 
acts were passed, they limited the power which the 
provincial governors generally possessed of summon- 
ing, proroguing, and dissolving assemblies. 

Another parliamentary privilege jealously guard- 
ed by the colonists was that of judging elections; 
the Virginia burgesses declared, in 1692, that the 
house was the sole judge of the capacity or inca- 
pacity of its members; sheriffs who attempted to 
determine such questions were declared guilty of a 
breach of privilege, and two of them were ordered 
under arrest.^ 

The assemblies were not, however, content with 
securing their freedom in the exercise of legislative 
privileges. They desired also to strengthen their 
control over the provincial executive, and their chief 
instrument for this purpose was the power to grant 
or withhold taxes. Of all the royal provinces, the 
most aggressive in this respect was Massachusetts, 
where the colonists under the old charter had been 
accustomed to almost entire independence. Even 
the new charter allowed them privileges^ unusual in 
a royal province, including the right to appoint 
many administrative officers. There was, more- 

* Poore, CJtarters and Constitutions, II., 1536; Cooper, Statutes 
of S.C., II., 79; N. C. Col. Records, II., 213; Cal. of State Pap., 
Col., 1689-1692, pp. 454, 617; Chalmers, Revolt, I., 294, n. 

VOL. VI. — 7 



over, in the province a strong radical party under 
the leadership of Elisha Cooke, one of the most 
aggressive members of the radical party which had 
been unwilling to accept the compromise charter 
of 1 69 1. Cooke was repeatedly elected to the coun- 
cil, though several times excluded by the vetoes of 
Governor Phips and Governor Dudley. It appears 
to have been his policy to secure for the colony the 
largest measure of independence possible under the 
new charter.^ 

The programme of the popular party in Massa- 
chusetts is partially set forth in an act passed by 
the general court in 1694, but soon after disal- 
lowed by the crown, claiming for the assembly the 
right to appoint all civil officers not particularly 
designated in the charter, besides a complete control 
of public expenditures. All official salaries were 
to be fixed by the assembly ; whenever revenue was 
to be raised, the house should be apprised of the 
purpose for which it was to be used ; and no money 
was to be expended except for the objects speci- 
fied by law. Except in the case of contingent 
charges, every warrant must indicate the specific 
service for which the money was used and the law 
by which it had been authorized. The disallowance 
of the act did not prevent the assembly from car- 
rying out substantially the policy here indicated; 
for in the face of constant protests from royal gov- 
ernors and the home government, the assembly 

* Hutchinson, Hist, of Mass. Bay (ed. of 1795) , II., 70, 125, 137. 


steadily refused to make permanent provision for 
the civil list. The governor's salary was voted 
from year to year, expenditures were controlled by 
detailed appropriations, and the province treasurer 
was appointed by act of assembly.^ 

This radical programme was not fully carried out 
in the other provinces, but nearly every feature of 
it may be found in one or more of the royal or pro- 
prietary governments. In Virginia, where the as- 
sembly had granted a standing appropriation before 
the revolution, a fixed salary was secured to the 
governor; but permanent grants were refused in 
nearly all of the other colonies. There was also a 
growing tendency to appropriate money in detail 
and for limited periods of time, a method particular- 
ly objectionable to the home government because 
it enabled the assembly to exert pressure upon the 
governor for the purpose of carrying distinctively 
popular measures. 

The claim of the assembly to control the finances 
came more and more to mean control by the repre- 
sentative house. Even before the English revo- 
lution, the Virginia burgesses refused to allow the 
cotmcil to act with them in laying the levy; and 
elsewhere the council was denied the right to 
amend money bills. This claim of the represent- 
ative was resisted by the home government and 
was not always made good, though it was in 

^Massachusetts Bay, Acts and Resolves, I., 170, 174, 188, 394, 
437; VII., 24, 376, passim. 


accordance with the usage of the House of Com- 

In one respect the constitutional development of 
the colonies outstripped that of the mother-country. 
In England the formal appointment of ministers of 
state has remained to the present time in the hands 
of the crown, and, until the accession of the Han- 
overians, Parliament had only an imperfect control. 
On the other hand, the appointment of administra- 
tive officers by the provincial assemblies became 
common soon after the English revolution, as a 
natural result of their theory of financial control. 
The money raised by public taxation belonged to 
the people, and their representatives had, therefore, 
the right to determine how it should be spent, and 
to provide the necessary safeguards for such ex- 

The most important application of this theory 
was the appointment of the province treasurer by 
the assembly. In 1691 the governor of Barbadoes 
complained that the treasurer was appointed by act 
of assembly, and that the lower house claimed the 
nomination as "absolutely its own." In 1693 the 
Virginia council refused to accept a bill from the 
burgesses for appointing a treasurer; but after 
1704 the treastirer of that province was regularly 
appointed by act of assembly. In New York the 
same policy was adopted during the early years of 

* Cf. Osgood, Am. Cols, in the Seventeenth Century, chap, xjv.; 
Greene, Provincial Governor , 1 21-124, 169-174. 


the eighteenth century, after the passage of reso- 
lutions referring to previous misapplication of funds ; 
and in 17 15 the governor was convinced that re- 
sistance to that method of appointment was no 
longer practicable. Similar appointments by the 
assembly were made in the proprietary govern- 
ments of Pennsylvania, the Jerseys, and South 
Carolina, and for a time at least in the temporary 
royal province of Maryland. In South Carolina 
the public receiver or treasurer had been appointed 
by act of assembly at least as early as 1691, and in 
1707 the governor approved an act which gave the 
exclusive right of nomination to the ''House of 
Commons." ^ Thus, by the close of Queen Anne's 
reign, the colonial assemblies were, with few ex- 
ceptions, enforcing their claim not merely to lay 
taxes and determine expenditures, but also to ap- 
point the chief financial officer of the province. 

Royal officers in the colonies and the Board of 
Trade in England often pointed out the marked 
tendency towards autonomy in provincial adminis- 
tration and sought to check it. In 1703 the board 
attempted to make a stand upon the salary ques- 
tion, and Governor Dudley urged repeatedly upon 
the Massachusetts assembly the establishment of a 
fixed salary ; but the house answered his arguments 

^ Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1689-1692, pp. 371, 373, 405, 1693- 
1696, p. 66; Greene, Provincial Governor, 182-186; Chalmers, 
Opinions, 179; Smith, South Carolina, 15-17; cf. Osgood, Am. 
Cols, in the Seventeenth Century ^ II., 372-374. 



by insisting on ''the native right and privilege" of 
English subjects, "from time to time to raise and 
dispose such sum and sums of money as the pres- 
ent exigency of affairs calls for." Hunter, in New- 
York, was equally aggressive, but the best he could 
do was to secure a civil list for a fixed term of 
years. In 1711 the Board of Trade suggested that 
the New-Yorkers might be brought to terms by 
threatening the intervention of Parliament ; but the 
ministry, as a whole, was not then ready for such 
thorough-going measures.^ 

While engaged in these constitutional contro- 
versies, the colonists came to appreciate the neces- 
sity of having their interests guarded by agents in 
the mother-country. Until the latter part of the 
seventeenth century such agents, though occasion- 
ally appointed, were intended to meet special emer- 
gencies of some kind. After the revolution it 
gradually became the general custom to maintain 
standing agencies in London, in charge of the in- 
terests of the particular province. At first these 
agents were usually appointed by act of assembly, 
requiring the consent of the governor, coimcil, and 
representatives ; but sometimes, as in Massachusetts, 
the choice was practically that of the house ; they were 
also instructed from time to time by the assembly.^ 

^ Address of coimcil and representatives, quoted in Palfrey, 
New England, IV., 297, 17.; N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col Hist.,Y., 191. 

2 Cal. of State Pap., Col., 16S9-1692, pp. 453, 45S, 632, 710; 
Sewall, Diary, II., 284; Tanner, " Colonial Agencies," in Political 
Science Quarterly, XVI., 24-49. 


Through these agencies, and by various other 
methods, the colonists came to have considerable 
influence in London. Money was used to some ex- 
tent to promote colonial interests, and there was an 
impression in the colonies that men of influence 
might be won by the use of it. In 1693, Governor 
Fletcher represented some of the colonists as think- 
ing that anything may be Effected at Whitehall for 
mony." ^ A few years later William Penn, after a 
considerable experience in English politics, was try- 
ing to secure the attorney-general's approval of the 
Pennsylvania laws. He noted some objection which 
the latter had made, but added his opinion that " a 
good fee would go a great way to clear the scruple, 
if I had it to give him."^ The history of this colo- 
nial diplomacy in London has not yet been ade- 
quately studied; such a study should throw new 
light on the failure of the Board of Trade to repress 
the independent tendencies in colonial politics. 

The preceding survey seems to show that the 
practical effect of the imperialistic movement was 
counteracted by strong independent tendencies 
within the colonies, so that it is hard to avoid the 
paradoxical conclusion that a period characterized 
by the extension of imperial control was also one 
of growing independence on the part of the colonies. 
The explanation may be stated briefly thus : whereas, 

» N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., IV., 73; cf. Bassett, Writings of 
Colonel William Byrd, chaps, xxiv., xxv. 
2 Penn-Logan Correspondence, I,, 297. 



during the larger part of the seventeenth century, 
the colonists were left almost wholly to themselves 
or their proprietary governors, a measure of im- 
perial control was, thereafter, gradually extended 
over them, and a majority were brought under the 
influence of the provincial system. When, how- 
ever, that new status was extended over commimi- 
ties hitherto accustomed to freer action, important 
concessions became necessary; and as the colonies 
were brought into closer relations with each other, 
modifications of that system which had been found 
necessary in one colony tended to become general. 
The influence of English precedents also contributed 
to this result. The provincial constitution was 
modelled closely on that of England, without its 
strong aristocratic upper house; and the colonial 
assemblies shared the aspirations of the Mother of 
Parliaments. Thus we have, at the same time, an 
extension of the provincial system and a vigorous 
development within that system of the self-govern- 
ing spirit. 

By some contemporary observers the colonists 
were charged with cherishing the ideal of ultimate 
independence, and much was made of their violation 
of acts of Parliament, especially those relating to 
trade. Here and there, particularly in New Eng- 
land, men were said to dispute the validity of par- 
liamentary statutes. Zealous royal oflicials were 
easily led to identify opposition to their own au- 
thority with disloyalty to the crown, and that 


charge was most frequently and naturally brought 
against New England, where the old independent 
Puritan ideals clashed most sharply with the pre- 
vailing English system in church and state. This 
charge of disloyalty to the mother -country was, 
however, vigorously repelled by the New-England- 
ers, who pointed to their sacrifices in the inter- 
colonial wars and emphasized important elements 
of common feeling underlying their political and 
ecclesiastical differences/ 

Yet the charges of British officials had undoubt- 
edly a certain basis. The political horizon of the 
colonists was hemmed in by the physical barriers 
which separated them from their fellow- subjects, 
so that they often displayed a lack of that broader 
loyalty which leads men to make sacrifices for ob- 
jects not directly affecting their own interests or 
safety. It is true also that with this lack of in- 
terest in matters of more than pure^y local concern, 
there existed an intense desire to manage their 
provincial interests in their own way. This in- 
sistence on local autonomy was not peculiar to any 
group of colonies. It attracted most attention in 
New England ; but it may be found also among the 
Quakers of Pennsylvania, the tobacco planters of 
Virginia, and the little slave-holding oligarchies of 
Barbadoes and South Carolina. Royal governors 

* Chalmers, i^^oZf, I., 225, 315-317, 369; Penhallow, Wars of 
New England, 72-74; Dummer, Defence of the New England 
Charters; see also below, p. 188. 



like Hunter pointed out the inherent inconsistency 
between this spirit of autonomy and the authority 
of the mother-country as understood by colonial 
administrators in England. The danger of inde- 
pendence which they sought to avert, though not 
immediate, was not altogether imaginary.* 

» Of. N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., V., 330, 340. 



FOR a quarter - century after the revolution of 
1689 English and colonial politics were largely 
influenced by the conflict of ecclesiastical parties. 
In England, and at one time or another in most of 
her colonies, church and state were united, and 
religion and politics were constantly reacting upon 
each other. In the ecclesiastical politics of the 
colonies during this period three phases are of 
prime historical importance: first, the gradual re- 
laxation of the Puritan system in New England, 
particularly in Massachusetts; secondly, the effort 
of the aggressive Anglican party to extend over the 
colonies the ecclesiastical system of the mother- 
cotmtry, with its financial support of the established 
church and its discrimination against dissenters; 
and, finally, the conflict between clergy and laity 
within the ranks of the established church. 

At the close of the seventeenth century the old 
Puritan order was still strongly intrenched in New 
England. Except in Rhode Island, the Congrega- 
tional churches were generally recognized as en- 



titled to public support; churches were built and 
ministers paid by taxes which were exacted from 
dissenters as well as from adherents or members. 
The church-membership qualification for voters had, 
indeed, been superseded by property qualifications, 
but the Puritan clergy still exerted a strong in- 
fluence on the conduct of public affairs. Their ad- 
vice was still asked on questions of policy; and the 
law, both in its making and in its administration, 
still expressed in large measure the opinions and 
ideals of the Puritan founders. 

These general propositions are well illustrated in 
the history of Massachusetts in the years immediate- 
ly following the revolution. The most important 
agent in securing the new charter and in determin- 
ing the personnel of the new government was In- 
crease Mather, a Congregational minister in active 
service. Phips, the first governor, had been re- 
cently received into a Congregational church. The 
lieutenant-governor, Stoughton, and most of his 
associates in the council, were thorough-going Puri- 
tans, who, after the recall of Phips, were charged 
for several years with the administration of the 
provincial government. The next governor, Bello- 
mont, though himself an Anglican, thought it wise 
to attend one service weekly in a Congregational 
church. The Church of England had gained a foot- 
hold; but, from the Puritan point of view, it was 
still a peculiarly odious, dissenting sect. 

One of the most marked characteristics of the 


old Puritan life was its strong belief in the presence 
and concrete manifestation in human affairs of 
supernatural forces. This intense supernaturalism 
was, of course, not peculiar to the Puritan; it was 
equally characteristic of the medieval church, and 
in seventeenth - century Europe the convention- 
al acceptance of supernatural theories was almost 
universal. Yet among the English Protestants of 
that day it was the Puritan sects with whom the 
conventional dogma was most likely to become a 
vital factor in the conduct of life. It was the per- 
sistence of this conviction which, at the beginning 
of the provincial era, made possible that great 
tragedy of New England history, the Salem witch- 

It is not easy to determine the effect which this 
tragedy and the part taken in it by the conser\^ative 
leaders may have had upon the religious thought 
of New England. Yet it is certain that while Mas- 
sachusetts was being brought into closer commercial 
and political relations with the outside world the 
exclusive supremacy of Puritan ideals was being seri- 
ously shaken. This can be seen first in lax or lib- 
eral movements within the church itseh. The condi- 
tions of church-membership were relaxed so that the 
church could be entered without that thorough 
spiritual examination which the fathers had thought 
necessar\^ In Boston the new Brattle Street Church, 
organized in 1699, though accepting the substance 

^ See above, chap. ii. 



of the old theology, adopted certain usages which 
the conservatives regarded as highly objectionable. 
The Scriptures might be read in the Anglican fashion, 
without comment; members might be admitted 
without any public statement of their experiences; 
and persons who were not full members of the 
church might be allowed to vote in the choice of a 
new minister. There was a long controversy be- 
tween the leaders of this new movement and the 
conservatives represented by Increase and Cotton 

Both parties were anxious to control the govern- 
ment of Harvard College, and Cotton Mather, find- 
ing that the liberals had gained the upper hand, 
began to interest himself in the new Connecticut 
college. Such men as Sewall and the Mathers fre- 
quently expressed misgivings regarding religious 
and social tendencies at variance with the old 
Puritan standards. In his Magnalia Christi, Cotton 
Mather recorded his opinion that, "The old spirit 
of New England hath been sensibly going out of 
the world, as the old saints in whom it was have 
gone; and instead thereof the spirit of the world, 
with a lamentable neglect of strict piety, has crept 
in upon the rising generation." ^ 

In those times of declining spiritual vigor the 
established churches of New England had to meet 
the growing activity of the dissenting bodies. Of 

^ Winsor, Memorial Hist, of Boston, II., chap, vi.; Mather, 
Magnalia Christi (ed. of 1853), II,, 334; cf. below, chap, xviii. 


these the most important were the Quakers, the 
Baptists, and the AngHcans. By the close of the 
seventeenth century each of these denominations 
was represented by a regularly organized church in 
Boston. In Rhode Island the Quakers and Bap- 
tists were probably the strongest bodies. Else- 
where in New England their numbers were rela- 
tively small, and they had to contend with strong 
prejudices. During the reign of Queen Anne, both 
the Connecticut and j\Iassachusetts governments 
were complained of for unfriendly treatment of the 
Quakers. When, in 1708, the Quakers of Boston 
petitioned for leave to build a wooden meeting- 
house, Sewall opposed it, saying that he "would 
not have a hand in setting up their Devil Worship." ^ 
Sewall and his contemporaries watched with par- 
ticular anxiety the gro\\1:h of the Anglican congre- 
gation worshipping at King's Chapel. This church 
had gained a foothold in Boston after the over- 
throw of the first charter; and after the revolution 
it grew pretty steadily, imtil during the first quarter 
of the eighteenth century it came to number several 
hundred adherents and a second church became 
necessary. Some of the rectors of King's Chapel 
were prominent figures in Boston life, and it gained 
some prestige from the special patronage of the 
crown. Lord Bellomont was a member of this con- 
gregation; and his successor, Dudley, though main- 
taining some relationship with the Congregation- 
* Sewall, Diary, II., 232. 



alists, also frequented the Anglican services, and 
for a time at least was thought to be in special 
sympathy with them. From time to time there 
were funerals of prominent social personages, at 
which Puritan sensibilities were disturbed by the 
use of the English burial service. The religious 
observance of Christmas was another Anglican 
usage against which Sewall repeatedly recorded his 
protest. In Rhode Island, especially in Newport, 
the Episcopal church gained considerable strength, 
and Connecticut had a small but aggressive Epis- 
copal element, especially in the western counties. 

One of the most dramatic incidents in the long- 
drawn-out struggle between Puritans and Anglicans 
in New England was the libel case of John Check- 
ley, an Anglican bookseller in Boston, who in 1724 
was tried by the superior court of Massachusetts, 
convicted of seditious libel, and sentenced to pay 
a heavy fine for an argumentative publication as- 
serting the exclusive Episcopal authority as against 
Congregational ordination. This seems to have 
been the last attempt to check dissenting publica- 
tions by legal process. 

The most serious practical grievance of the dis- 
senters in New England was the obligation imposed 
upon them of paying the town taxes for the sup- 
port of the Congregational worship. This was the 
general rule outside of Rhode Island at the begin- 
ning of the eighteenth century; but some conces- 
sions had been made by Massachusetts. In the 



town of Swansea, annexed to Massachusetts in 
1 69 1 with other towns of the Plymouth Colony, 
the Baptists were in control and continued as be- 
fore to appropriate their church taxes to the sup- 
port of their own minister: this course was, how- 
ever, distinctly exceptional. During Queen Anne's 
reign efforts were made by Anglicans to secure 
exemption from this obligation to support another 
communion, and they seem to have had some en- 
couragement from Governor Dudley. In 17 13 one 
of the Puritan ministers of Boston spoke "very 
fiercely against the Govr. and Council's meddling with 
suspension of Laws, respecting Church of England 
men not paying Taxes to the dissenting Ministers." 
In this particular instance, an Episcopal resident 
of Braintree had refused to pay his church tax, 
and the matter ended by the levy of an execution 
on his property. The Quakers also presented re- 
peated complaints of the injustice done them in 
New England by "priest's rates." In 1723 the 
Privy Council took action upon a case in which 
Quaker town officers had been imprisoned because 
of their refusal to collect taxes for a Congregational 
minister ; the decision of the Massachusetts authori- 
ties was reversed, and it was ordered that the tax 
should be remitted and the assessors released.^ 
During this decade a number of events contributed 

1 Baclms, New England, I., chaps, x., xi.; Sewall, Diary, I., 
430, 493; II., 58, 59, 233, 337, 379, 387; Slafter, John Checkley, 
passim, especially the Memoir (Prince Society, Publications). 

VOL. VI. — 8 



to enhance the prestige of the Anglican party. In 
1722, Timothy Cutler, president of Yale College, 
and some other prominent Congregational ministers 
of Connecticut, announced their conversion to the 
Church of England, and soon after Cutler became 
the rector of one of the Episcopal churches in Bos- 
ton. In 1725, when the Massachusetts Congre- 
gationalists proposed to hold a synod, they met 
with a protest from the Anglican party, which was 
sustained by the bishop of London and by the law- 
officers of the crown. By the close of the decade 
special acts were passed, both in Massachusetts and 
Connecticut, partially relieving the Anglicans, Qua- 
kers, and Baptists from the necessity of contribut- 
ing to the Congregational churches. The obligation 
still continued for Anglicans who had no local 
church of their own ; but wherever an Episcopal 
church had been organized those who attended its 
services were entitled to reclaim for their minister 
their share of the local church taxes. The separa- 
tion of church and state and the equal rights of 
all religious bodies did not receive complete recog- 
nition until long after the War of Independence, 
but the old Puritan ideal of a single church impos- 
ing its fixed standards upon the community had 
been hopelessly broken down.^ 

Once fairly established, the Anglican clergy and 

* Massachusetts Bay, Acts and Resolves, II., 461, 494, 619, 
783, 1022; Talcott Papers, I., 53, 65; cf. Cobb, Religious Liberty 
in America, 269-271. 


laity became an important factor in New England 
politics. In Connecticut and Massachusetts they 
formed a small but aggressive loyalist group, who, 
as members of the state Church of England, valued 
also their political connection with the mother- 
country. When hard pressed by the dominant 
church of their new home, they looked for encour- 
agement and support to the crown and its offi- 
cial representatives in America, with whom they 
felt it their duty to stand for order in church and 
state. In 1724 the Anglicans of Newport united 
in a declaration to the king which, though perhaps 
too extreme to be wholly representative, does fairly 
illustrate the political tendencies of their fellow- 
churchmen in New England. They assured the 
king that, *'The religious and loyal principles of 
obedience and non-resistance are upon all suitable 
occasions strongly asserted and inculcated upon 
your Majesty's good subjects of this Church." ^ 

Nowhere except in New England did the estab- 
lished Church of England have to struggle for bare 
tolerance or equal rights at the hands of a rival 
church supported by colonial law. Elsewhere the 
Anglicans were more ambitious in their demands; 
their ideal was the legal establishment of their 
church in the various provinces, and, ultimately, 
the close adjustment of this provincial church to 
the English diocesan system. 

Before 1689 the Church of England was not defi- 
^ Memorial quoted in Palfrey, New England, IV., 470. 



nitely established by law in any of the continental 
colonies, except Virginia, though there were some 
AngHcan churches in Maryland and a strong An- 
glican element in South Carolina. In North Caro- 
lina and the northern proprietary provinces, the 
field was almost exclusively occupied by various 
sects of Protestant dissenters. During the next 
twenty-five years, however, there was a marked ex- 
tension of Anglican influence in all of these colonies. 

One of the important leaders in this movement 
was Henry Compton, who was bishop of London 
for nearly forty years, beginning his official career 
imder Charles II. and dying near the close of Queen 
Anne's reign. At his accession to office there was 
a well-recognized tradition that the colonies were 
imder the special guardianship of the bishop of 
London, and in the royal province of Virginia no 
minister could be preferred to any benefice without 
his certificate. This responsibility for the colonies 
was expressly asserted by Compton soon after his 
accession; and in 1685 he secured a modification of 
the instructions to the royal governors by which his 
episcopal authority was to take effect "as far as 
conveniently may be," reserving to the governor the 
rights of collation to benefices, issuing of marriage 
licenses, and the probate of wills. Henceforth, also, 
no school-master coming from England was to keep 
a school without the bishop's license.^ 

^ Cross, Anglican Episcopate and the Am. Cols., chaps, i., ii.; 
Anderson, Church of England in the Cols., II., 341. 


During the reign of James II., Compton's inde- 
pendent course in English affairs led to his sus- 
pension; but after the revolution he resumed his 
office and at once became a member of the Com- 
mittee of Trade and Plantations. In the same 
year he inaugurated an important new policy by 
appointing James Blair as his representative or 
commissary in Virginia. The commissary had a 
small part of the episcopal authority; he was to 
act as counsellor for the clergy of the province and 
to hold visitations or inquiries into the conduct of 
ministers, and in rare instances he might suspend 
a delinquent clergyman. Blair was an aggressive 
Scotchman of some ability and learning, who had 
already been in Virginia for several years. He took 
an active interest in politics as well as in religion, 
and quarrelled with the successive governors of the 
province. Yet he undoubtedly advanced the in- 
terests of the church by working for reform in 
the manners of the clergy, though he was conserva- 
tive in the exercise of disciplinary authority, mak- 
ing only two suspensions in thirty-five years. Under 
his influence the supply of ministers was increased 
also, so that vacancies became much less common. 
Blair's greatest work was the founding, in 1693, of 
William and Mary College, which he looked upon 
as an important agency for the religious as well as 
the intellectual welfare of the province.* 

* Motley, Commissary Jam£s Blair {Johns Hopkins University 
Studies, XIX., No. 10). 



A more important figure than Blair in the annals 
of the colonial church was Thomas Bray, appointed 
by Compton as commissary for Maryland on the 
request of the provincial clergy. Before assuming 
the duties of this office Bray interested himself in 
the establishment of parochial libraries for the 
colonies, and though he made only a short visit to 
Maryland he had an important influence in secur- 
ing the legal establishment of the Church of Eng- 
land in that province/ 

During the eighteenth century commissaries were 
sent to several of the colonies, but none of them 
deserve to rank with these first two holders of that 
office. They frequently became involved in serious 
conflicts with the civil authorities, and were rarely 
able to maintain an effective discipline over the 

Probably the most important and best - known 
single agency for promoting the interests of the 
Anglican church in America was the Society for 
the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. 
This organization came into existence largely 
through the efforts of Dr. Bray, who had previously 
been interested in a similar organization known as 
the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. 
The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, often 
called the Venerable Society, was chartered in 1701, 
with the patronage and active co-operation of the 
bishop of London and other prominent prelates. 
* Mereness, Maryland, 438. 


The new organization entered at once upon active 
missionary work in America. During the years 
1 702-1 704 two of its agents, George Keith, a 
former Quaker, and John Talbot, made a long tour 
of the colonies, beginning at Boston and going as 
far south as North Carolina. The missionaries sent 
out by the society varied greatly in character and 
efficiency. Some of them were lacking in tact, and 
some brought scandal upon the church by gross 
personal misconduct, as, for instance, in North Caro- 
lina. Others were men of marked ability and fine 
Christian spirit.^ 

Another important influence at work for the 
Church of England in the colonies was that of the 
provincial governors and other ro3^al officers in the 
colonies. The aggressive royal governors of this 
period — such men as Nicholson, Fletcher, Bello- 
mont, and Spotswood — were also strong church- 
men. Nicholson in particular was widely known as 
a zealous and disinterested friend of the church, to 
which he contributed considerable simis of money. 
The same thing was true of such royal agents as 
Randolph and Quarry. Conversely, the aggressive 
churchmen were usually advocates of closer im- 
perial control. 

Under these favoring circumstances, there was 
naturally a decided increase in the number of 

^Anderson, Chtirch of England in the Cols., II., 550-578, III., 
24-76, 220-234; Prot. Episc. Hist. Soc, Collections, I., especially 
Keith, Journal. 



Anglican churches and adherents in nearly all the 
colonies. For the first time there appeared reg- 
ularly organized Episcopal churches in New York 
and New Jersey. In 1695 the first Episcopal 
church was built in Philadelphia, and soon assumed 
an important place in the life of the Quaker colony. 
In North Carolina there had been no Episcopal 
ministers or churches before 1700, but in the next 
decade the Anglican party was able for a time to 
shape the ecclesiastical policy of the province.^ 

With increased ntmibers and a growing sense of 
power, there came in several colonies a strong move- 
ment for the legal establishment of the English 
church. The movement was least successful in the 
middle colonies where the dissenting Protestant 
sects were in a large majority. In New York, 
however, Governor Fletcher secured from the as- 
sembly an act imder which a few Episcopal churches 
were supported by public taxation.^ 

In the south the new movement towards es- 
tablishment was general and in form at least success- 
ful. The first to act was Maryland. Here the 
proprietary governments had before the revolution 
been called upon to provide a tax for the support 
of the Anglican clergy. In reply the proprietor 
declared that at least three-fourths of the popula- 

1 Anderson, Church of England in the Cols., II., 434-441; 
Weeks, Religious Development in N . C. (Johns Hopkins Uni- 
versity Studies, X., Nos. 5,6). 

2 Ecclesiastical Records, New York, II., 1073-1079; N . Y. Docs. 
Rel. to Col. Hist., V., 334. 


tion were Protestant dissenters of various sects and 
that a tax on them for the support of another 
worship would be unfair. The first assembly -under 
the royal government took a different view. By 
a statute of 1692 the Church of England was es- 
tablished and the vestries were authorized to levy 
taxes for the support of their ministers. Another act 
of 1696, which superseded the earlier legislation, 
having been opposed by the Quakers and Catholics, 
was disallowed by the crowm, ostensibly because it 
contained some irrelevant matter. During his short 
visit to the province in 1700, Bray secured the 
passage of a new establishment act, which, however, 
contained an extreme clause requiring the use of the 
common prayer in every place of public worship. 
This act also was antagonized by the Quakers and 
Catholics; in anticipation of another royal veto, a 
new bill, without the objectionable clauses, was ac- 
cepted by the Maryland assembly and became law 
in 1702. Under this law the Anglican church re- 
tained its position as an establishment imtil the 
American Revolution.^ 

The Anglicans of North Carolina had been almost 
entirely passive imtil 1699, when Henderson Walker 
took office as deputy governor of the province. 
Walker was an aggressive churchman, and imder his 
leadership the church party, by "a great deal of 
care and management," secured control of the 
assembly. In 1701 an act was passed establishing 
1 Mereness, Maryland, 130,436-441. 



the church and authorizing the levy of a poll-tax 
for the support of the clergy, and under its pro- 
visions three churches were built; but the next 
assembly was controlled by the Quakers and their 
allies, and shortly afterwards the establishment act 
was disallowed by the proprietors. For the next 
twelve years there was a constant conflict between 
churchmen and dissenters, culminating in the petty 
civil war known as the Gary rebellion. The vestry 
act of 1 7 1 5 settled the issue nominally in favor of the 
establishment ; but the results attained were small, 
and many years later a governor of the province 
complained to the assembly that there were *'but 
two places where divine service is regularly per- 
formed." ^ 

In South Carolina the Anglican influence was 
stronger than in the northern colony, and as early 
as 1698 provision was made by the assembly for 
the support of an Episcopal minister in Charleston. 
In 1702, Sir Nathaniel Johnson, a former governor of 
the Leeward Islands, who on the accession of William 
and Mary had proved his loyalty to the Stuarts 
by resigning his post, was appointed governor by 
the proprietors. Like most high Tories of that day, 
whether in England or America, Johnson was also an 
extreme churchman, and under his leadership a 
church act was passed in 1704 which divided the 

^ Weeks, Religious Development in N. C, and his Church and 
State in N. C. {Johns Hopkins University Studies, X., Nos. 5,6, 
and XI., Nos. 5, 6). 


province into six parishes, and allowed the minister 
of each parish a salary of £^o out of the public 
treasury. A provision of this act regarding the 
discipline of the clergy was objectionable to the 
bishop of London, and in 1706 it was annulled by 
the crown; but in the same year a new estab- 
lishment act was passed without the obnoxious 
clause and became the permanent law of the prov- 

The simple establishment of the Anglican church 
was not enough to satisfy its more zealous ad- 
herents. In some instances they followed the 
example of the English Tories and demanded 
legislation still further discriminating against the 
dissenters. Even in the revolution settlement of 
1689 the English dissenters had only been granted 
a bare toleration, and they were still excluded from 
public offices, except so far as they chose to qualify 
themselves by occasionally receiving the sacrament 
according to the Anglican rites. During the reign 
of Queen Anne the high - church party was par- 
ticularly aggressive, and after some unsuccessful 
attempts finally carried, in 17^1, the Occasional 
Conformity Act, imposing heavy penalties on dissent- 
ers who attempted to evade the legal tests. Three 
years later the so-called Schism Act was passed, im- 
posing severe penalties upon any one, with a few 
clearly defined exceptions, who should keep a school 

1 McCrady, South Carolina under Proprietary Government, 
chaps, xiv., xviii., xix. 


or engage in teaching without a bishop's license and 
an agreement to conform to the Church of England.* 

With this intolerant spirit prevailing in the 
church at home, it is not strange that similar 
measures were attempted in the colonies. In 1707, 
Governor Cornbury, of New York, imdertook to 
punish two Presbyterian ministers for preaching 
w^ithout a license ; but in this case the ministers were 
protected by the jury.^ The unsuccessful attempt 
of the Maryland assembly to compel the use of the 
English prayer-book has already been noted. 

The controversy in the Carolinas took on a much 
more serious character, and nearly resulted in the 
overthrow of the proprietary government. In the 
same year, 1704, in which the first general church 
act was passed for South Carolina, the high -church 
party obtained a law providing that no one should 
sit in the assembly without having received the 
sacrament according to the Anglican rite. This 
measure was conceived in the same spirit as the 
religious tests at home, and it was brought forward 
in America just at the time when the occasional 
conformity bill was being urged in Parliament. 
It is at least possible that a similar measure was 
enacted in North Carolina, though the evidence is 
incomplete. At any rate, the dissenters in both 
the Carolinas were now thoroughly aroused, agents 
were sent to England, and through the influence of 

* 10 Anne, chaps, v., vi.; 13 Anne, chap, vii, 
2 N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., IV., 1186. 


the House of Lords, where the extreme churchmen 
were still in the minority, the law was annulled.^ 

In the Quaker colony of Pennsylvania the church 
party was not in a position to secure an establish- 
ment and it remained always in a small minority. 
Yet at times this minority was a decidedly aggressive 
and important element in provincial politics. At 
the beginning of the eighteenth century its leaders 
were hostile to the proprietary government, and did 
what they could to discredit it by bringing out 
sharply two points which caused special embarrass- 
ment to the responsible Quaker leaders : one was the 
unwillingness of the Quakers to provide adequate 
measures for defence; the other was their refusal 
either to take or administer oaths. Harassed by 
these attacks, moderate Quakers were even ready 
to consider the possible advantage of leaving the 
government in the hands of moderate churchmen. 
Penn himself held the bishop of London largely 
responsible for the agitation on the question of 
oaths, and referred to him as "the great blower-up 
of these coals." Thus in the middle as well as in 
the southern colonies the antagonism of churchmen 
and dissenters became an important phase of 
provincial politics.^ 

The adherents of the Anglican church were by no 
means free from dissensions within their own ranks. 
In church as well as in state the spirit of local 

1 See above, p. 60. 

2 Penn-Logan Correspondence, I., 278, 282; II., 276, 420. 


antagonism asserted itself against external au- 
thority, and the Old- World jealousy between laity 
and clergy appeared also in the American provinces, 
especially in the colonies where the Church of 
England was established. Sometimes, on the ques- 
tion of financial support for the clergy, indifferent 
Anglicans would even join hands with the dissent- 
ers. Two of the most practical of these subjects of 
controversy were the method of engaging ministers 
and the maintenance of discipline over the clergy. 

The general rule in an Anglican province like 
Virginia was that the parishioners had the right of 
selecting or presenting a minister, who should then 
be formally inducted into his office. A clergyman 
once presented and inducted was established for 
life and could not be removed by his parishioners. 
This arrangement was unsatisfactory to the people, 
who preferred to keep the matter under their con- 
trol; and therefore, instead of regularly presenting 
a minister, they preferred to enter into yearly 
agreements with him regarding his service and his 
compensation. By the end of the seventeenth 
century this usage had developed into a serious 
abuse, at least from the clerical point of view.* 

The question of ecclesiastical discipline, especially 
in the case of ministers regularly inducted, was 
peculiarly difficult in the colonies, because there was 
no resident bishop and the disciplinary authority 

1 Perry, Papers Relating to the Church in Virginia, 127, 132; 
cf. Jones, Present State of Virginia, 104. 


of the commissaries was generally ineffective. This 
led to various efforts on the part of the laity to take 
the matter into their own hands. Thus, in Virginia, 
the governor and council were constituted a court 
for the trial of ecclesiastical offences. Generally, 
however, proposals of this kind were vigorously and 
successfully resisted by the clergy. In Maryland 
there were serious complaints of the immorality 
of the clergy; and during Queen Anne's reign the 
assembly passed a bill establishing a lay court for 
the trial of delinquent ministers, who, in case of 
conviction, could be removed from office. The bill 
was condemned by the clergy as tending to the 
"Presbyterian form of ministers and lay elders," 
and the governor withheld his consent. The project 
was not, however, abandoned: in 17 14 the governor 
refused the request of the vestries to discipline a 
delinquent clergyman; a bill to recognize the au- 
thority of the bishop's commissaries was then de- 
feated, and a few years later another bill was 
introduced for the organization of a lay court. 
Again, however, the clerical influence prevailed, and 
no real settlement of the question was reached until 
near the close of the colonial era. Reference has 
been made to a similar attempt in South Carolina 
at the very height of the high - church movement, 
which was defeated by the opposition of the bishop 
of London.^ 

^Hening, Statutes, III., 289; Mereness, Maryland, 441 et seq.; 
cf. Cross, Anglican Episcopate and the Am. Cols., 71 et seq. 


By the beginning of the eighteenth century the 
opinion was widely held both in England and 
America that the true solution for the problem of 
the colonial church would be found in the appoint- 
ment of resident American bishops. There are a 
few earlier references to the subject, but the most 
earnest advocates of the plan were the members 
and missionaries of the Society for the Propagation 
of the Gospel, including Thomas Bray. In 1705 a 
petition from Burlington, New Jersey, signed by 
fourteen clergymen asked for the appointment of a 
suffragan bishop, and this proposal was approved by 
Bishop Compton. Governor Hunter, of New York, 
was interested in the project, and in 171 2 the Society 
went so far as to provide a house for a bishop of 
Burlington. At about this time an effort was made 
to gauge colonial sentiment on the subject. Bishop 
Kennett, for instance, wrote to Colman, a Congre- 
gational minister in Massachusetts, . expressing the 
hope that ''your Churches would not be jealous," 
" they being out of our Line, and therefore beyond 
the Cognizance of any Overseers to be sent from 

At the close of Queen Anne's reign there seemed 
some reason to expect that the project might be 
carried out. The queen expressed her approval, and 
shortly before her death a bill was draughted for the 
organization of a colonial episcopate. The new 
king, George I., was soon asked by the Venerable 
Society to establish four colonial dioceses, two for 


the islands and two for the continental colonies, 
the seats of the latter to be respectively at Burling- 
ton, in New Jersey, and Williamsburg, in Virginia. 
Nothing came of the proposal, though the general 
idea of a colonial episcopate was discussed at in- 
tervals during the remainder of the colonial era. 
In the later stages of this discussion, on the eve of 
the Revolution, there was some anxiety, especially 
in New England, lest a colonial bishop might not 
content himself with a purely spiritual jurisdiction 
over the churches of his own communion. This 
ecclesiastical controversy became finally one of the 
minor factors in the alienation of the American 
colonists from the mother-country.* 

Thus the period of William and Anne shows, on 
the whole, a marked relaxation of the old Puritan 
system in Massachusetts and a general advance on 
the part of the Anglicans. Nevertheless, the self- 
governing instinct of the colonists showed itself in 
the conduct of the church as well as of the state, 
and the attempt to organize an effective episcopal 
jurisdiction in America failed, partly, perhaps, be- 
cause of colonial jealous}^, but more probably be- 
cause of the apathy of the home government. 

* Cross, Anglican Episcopate and the Am. Cols., chap, iv.; 
N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., V,, 310, 316, 473; Anderson, 
Church of England in the Cols., III., 74; Jones, Present State of 
Virginia (ed. of 1865), 110; cf. Howard, Preliminaries of the 
Revolution {Am. Nation, VIIL), chap. xii. 

VOL. VI. — 9 




THE revolution of 1689 was not merely an im- 
portant event in the constitutional history of 
the British Isles and of the English colonies; it 
also exerted a decisive influence on their inter- 
national relations. Under the later Stuarts the 
foreign policy of the English government had been 
shifting and uncertain. The aggressive measures of 
Louis XIV. had awakened anxiety for the balance 
of power in Europe, and his harsh treatment of his 
Huguenot subjects was resented by the strongly 
Protestant spirit of the English nation ; the spirit of 
commercial rivalry was also growing. These con- 
siderations would naturally have led to an English 
alliance with the Hapsburg monarchies of Spain and 
Austria on the one side, and the northern Protestant 
states on the other, against the expanding and men- 
acing power of France ; and such a policy seemed to 
be indicated by the Triple Alliance of 1668, when 
England combined with Holland and Sweden to 
defend the Spanish Netherlands against French 



The consistent carrying out of this policy was 
prevented chiefly by two considerations: the first 
was the commercial jealousy between England and 
Holland, which still interfered somewhat with their 
political co-operation ; the second was the peculiar 
relation which existed between the last two Stuarts 
and the king of France. Charles and James were 
both Catholics, and both desired for the old faith — 
first, toleration, and after that, if possible, the su- 
premacy in England. Politically in accord with 
the traditions of their family, they desired also 
to secure for themselves, not perhaps absolute 
power, but at least greater freedom from parlia- 
mentary restraints. Both in their political and in 
their ecclesiastical policies they counted upon the 
support of Louis XIV.; and the influence of these 
sympathies was shown in the secret treaty of Dover 
in 1670 and the English co-operation with France 
against the Dutch in 1672. 

The accession of William and Mary to the Eng- 
lish throne brought a decided change of foreign pol- 
icy. William III. was the head of the European alli- 
ance against Louis XIV. in the new continental war ; 
and though the English people were less interested 
than their king in the continental question of the 
balance of power, Louis XIV. virtually forced 
them to join the alliance when he championed the 
cause of their exiled king. The substitution of 
William and Mary for James 11. , intended to secure 
parliamentary liberties and the Protestant faith, 


was now challenged by a foreign king, who repre- 
sented precisely those tendencies in religion and 
politics which the nation had rejected. Not only 
was Louis XIV. the most striking embodiment of 
absolute monarchy, but he was also regarded since 
the revocation of the Edict of Nantes as the arch- 
enemy of the Protestant cause. He now con- 
tributed his money, his fleets, and his soldiers to 
bring about the restoration to the English throne of 
the Catholic Stuart king. The eight years of war 
which followed meant, therefore, a real struggle 
for national independence against foreign inter- 

The breach between England and France in the 
Old World brought into direct conflict their subjects 
in America. During the previous decade the rival 
colonies had attempted local wars, from which they 
had been held back by the conservative influence 
of their respective governments at home. James 
II. was sincerely desirous of defending English in- 
terests in the New World, but opposed to aggressive 
measures which might disturb his friendly relations 
with Louis XIV. Nevertheless, Englishmen and 
Frenchmen had already come to blows, and each 
suspected the other of instigating Indian attacks 
upon the frontiers. Thus the American war, though 
partly a result of the European conflict, was also 
in large measure the natural outgrowth of American 
conditions. A brief survey of these conditions is 
therefore essential, 


The French and the English came into contact 
and competition at a large number of widely scat- 
tered points. To the far north the rights of the 
British Hudson's Bay Company were disputed by 
the French; and in 1686, three years before the 
formal declaration of war, a French party captured 
three of the British posts. In Ne^vfoundland the 
settlements of English fishermen had an offset in 
the French post of Placentia. Similar close con- 
tacts were to be found in the West Indies: among 
the small islands of the Leeward group, Nevis, 
Antigua, and ]\Iontserrat were British, and St. 
Christopher partly French and partly English; in 
the Windward group, Barbadoes was British and 
Martinique French; and the new British colony of 
Jamaica was exposed to the attacks of French 
marauders from the neighboring islands. The 
French islands were few and small, but they be- 
came important centres for privateering and pirati- 
cal enterprise.^ 

For the present -da}' student of the American 
nation, the chief interest of these international 
rivalries lies in the contest for supremacy on the 
continent of North America, which, in the closing 
years of the seventeenth century, took place chiefly 
on the frontiers of New England and New York. 

^Parkman, Fronienac (ed. of 187S), 132-134; N. Y. Docs. Rel. 
to Col. Hist., IX., 801; Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1689-1692, p. 108; 
for a discussion of this subject from the point of view of French 
colonization, see Thwaites, France in America {Am. Nation, 
VII.), chaps, iii., vi. 


The boundary between Acadia and New England 
had never been accurately defined. The English 
establishments in 1688 extended eastward a little 
beyond the Kennebec to the frontier fort of Pema- 
quid; but a few miles away, at the mouth of the 
Penobscot, was the half-savage establishment of the 
French Baron de St. Castin. Farther to the north 
and east were French trading-posts and settlements 
on the St. John's River and the Bay of Fundy. 
The competition here was quite as much for Indian 
trade as for territory. Each party tried to con- 
ciliate the tribes who occupied the upper courses of 
the rivers. On the whole, the French were more 
successful, chiefly through their political agents the 
Jesuit missionaries, although they owed something 
also to the blunders of their English rivals. 

At the outbreak of the revolution of 1689, these 
Abenakis, or ''Eastern Indians," were bitterly hos- 
tile to the English, and had already made a number 
of raids on the frontier. Such an Indian war was 
particularly dangerous to the northern villages of 
Maine and New Hampshire, but there were few 
places even in the old Massachusetts Bay colony 
which could coimt themselves entirely safe. Since 
the Indian raids were thought to be largely in- 
stigated by French missionaries, no permanent solu- 
tion seemed possible without the expulsion of the 
French from Acadia and Canada.* 

^ Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1689-1692, pp. 45-47; Sewall, Diary, 
I., 223-227. 



On the New York frontier the situation was 
quite different. Though Dutch and English set- 
tlements had spread beyond Albany to Schenec- 
tady on the Mohawk, they were still distinctly out- 
posts at a long distance from any other consider- 
able places. North of Albany the English were 
separated from the French by a great expanse of 
wilderness extending to the St. Lawrence. The 
chief difficulty here arose from the western am- 
bitions of the two nations, and especially their 
competition for the fur trade. From the begin- 
ning of French colonization in America the west- 
ward movement had been one of its most marked 
characteristics; French missionaries and traders 
early made their way by the Ottawa River to the 
Great Lakes, and established trading-posts and mis- 
sions at the Straits of Mackinac and on the Illinois 
River. In 1673 Fort Frontenac was built at the 
outlet of Lake Ontario to strengthen the French 
interest in the west, especially as against the Iro- 

Before the English conquest of the Hudson val- 
ley, what the French had to fear in this quarter 
was not so much European rivalry as the hostility 
of the Iroquois, who lived in the Mohawk valley 
and in the region south of the lower lakes. Alienated 

^Schuyler, Colonial New York, I., 426-428; N. Y. Docs. Rel. 
to Col. Hist., IX., 95-114; cf. Tyler, England in America, chap, 
xviii., and Thwaites, France in America, chap. iv. {Am. Nation, 
IV. and VII.). 


from the French as early as 1609, they soon formed 
an alliance with the Dutch, with whom they carried 
on an important trade, especially in fire-arms. With 
these European weapons the Iroquois soon became 
the most formidable of the Indian tribes ; they nearly 
exterminated some of their neighbors, and extended 
their ravages among the tribes of the upper lakes 
and the Mississippi valley, many of whom were the 
allies of the French. 

The hostile attitude of the Iroquois blocked ef- 
fectually French movement south of the lower lakes, 
and disturbed trade with the western Indians; vig- 
orous efforts were therefore made to conciliate or 
overawe these formidable antagonists. Here, as in 
Acadia, their most effective political agents were 
Jesuit missionaries, by whose efforts some of the 
Iroquois were converted to the Catholic faith and 
placed in settlements on the St. Lawrence under 
French protection. From time to time military ex- 
peditions were undertaken to punish and overawe 
the hostile members of the league, but they failed 
to produce permanent results.* 

In November, 1686, the kings of France and 
England agreed to the so-called treaty ^of neutral- 
ity for America, and the governors on both sides 
were exhorted to refrain from hostile measures. 
Commissioners were appointed to adjust the pend- 
ing boundary disputes, but no final agreement was 
reached. Even James II., with all his desire for 
*Parkman, Fronienac, passim. 


friendly relations with France, insisted that the 
Five Nations were British subjects and entitled to 
his protection/ 

Hence the English governors of New York made 
active efforts to maintain and strengthen their hold 
upon the Iroquois, especially the aggressive Gov- 
ernor Thomas Dongan, the Irish Catholic repre- 
sentative of the Duke of York from 1683 to 1688. 
Some of the Iroquois had been induced to acknowl- 
edge themselves as under the protection of the Duke 
of York and King Charles, and the Five Nations as 
a whole were claimed as British subjects. The Eng- 
lish tried also to develop their trade with the western 
Indians, and with so much prospect of success that 
the French were thoroughly alarmed. An angry 
correspondence took place on these subjects between 
the rival governors, and in 1687 two trading parties 
sent out by Dongan were attacked and captured by 
the commandant of the French fort at Mackinac. 
In the same year Denonville commanded a Cana- 
dian expedition against the Senecas, w^hich was de- 
nounced by Dongan as an invasion of British juris- 
diction. Some Indian villages were destroyed, but 
the chief practical result was to provoke the Iroquois 
to measures of savage retaliation.^ 

Such in brief was the situation in America when 

^N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., III., 503; IX., 330, 416; 

Memoir es des Commiss aires {Paris, 1755), II., 81-89. 

^Parkman, Frontenac (ed. of 1878), 92; Golden, Five Indian 
Nations, pt. i., chap, iii., N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., III., 

347. 363. 436, 520, IX., 318, 336, 357-369. 405. 


in April, 1689, the formal outbreak of war in Europe 
closed the unsatisfactory chapter of diplomatic con- 
troversy and brought the rival nations to the trial 
of arms. In the war of the Grand Alliance, France 
stood almost alone against a formidable combina- 
tion, including not merely the Protestant states of 
England, Holland, and Germany, but also the Haps- 
burg monarchies of Spain and Austria. Two of Eng- 
land's allies, the Dutch and the Spaniards, had also 
possessions in America. There was little practical 
co-operation between them in the American war, 
but it was worth something to the Carolina settlers 
to be relieved from the fear of Spanish invasions. 

The great resources of France enabled Louis XIV. 
to meet the allies on equal terms; and indeed the 
military advantages at the outset were on his side, 
for during the first two years of the war the English 
government was handicapped by disturbances in 
Scotland and Ireland. The first important naval 
engagement, the battle of Beachy Head in 1690, 
seemed also to indicate the superiority of the French 
on the sea, even against a combination of Dutch 
and English fleets. It was not until 1692 that the 
English naval victory at La Hogue turned the 
scales in favor of England, and even then the Eng- 
lish preponderance was not decisive. The long- 
continued wars also imposed upon the English peo- 
ple unaccustomed financial burdens and strained 
their resources to the utmost. 

The pressure of the European war seriously 


limited England's efficiency in defence of its Ameri- 
can interests. British fleets were, indeed, sent to the 
West Indies, to co-operate in their protection and 
in offensive operations against the French, but they 
accomplished little of real importance. A few Brit- 
ish regulars were stationed in the West Indies and 
in New York, and from time to time money and 
military supplies were sent. On the whole, how- 
ever, the action of the British government upon 
the military situation in America was ineffective 
and of subordinate importance. The most impor- 
tant enterprise of the war in North America, the 
attack on Quebec in 1690, was undertaken by in- 
experienced colonists without assistance from the 
home government. 

A comparison of the resources of the rival colonies 
themselves seems at first sight to show a decisive 
advantage on the side of the English. In popula- 
tion and in wealth they far exceeded their French 
competitors. Even if we include only the colonies 
of New England and New York, which were most 
directly affected by the war, the Enghsh still had 
a decided preponderance. The comparatively large 
proportion of regular soldiers sent to Canada did 
not offset the English advantage in population. 

Yet on some points the French showed decided 
superiority: they had better trained and more effi- 
cient leaders, a more effective because more cen- 
tralized political administration, and more capacity 
for co-operation with their Indian allies. On the 


outbreak of the war the French government again 
sent out, to replace Denonville in the government 
of Canada, the famous Count Frontenac, a trained 
soldier and a daring commander, yet not reckless of 
his military resources. His previous service gave 
him a good knowledge of Canadian conditions, and 
he was remarkably effective in his dealings with the 
Indians. The increased prestige with which he 
now assumed office made him somewhat more in- 
dependent of local antagonisms and more nearly 
master of the situation. No British representative 
on the continent could be compared with him for 
a moment in the essential qualities of leadership. 
He had also some able subordinates, such as his 
successor, Calli^res, then governor of Montreal, and 
such effective partisan leaders as Villieu and Iber- 
ville. To oppose this chieftain and his lieuten- 
ants the English had plenty of daring and ener- 
getic men, but no able general, and few officers 
really trained to lead in the serious enterprises of 

Even if a leader like Frontenac had appeared on 
the English side, he would have been seriously ham- 
pered by the loose political organization of the 
colonies. During the first two years of the war, 
New England and New York, which had to bear 
the brunt of the French attack, were without defi- 
nitely settled governments, and suffered from the 
confusion incident to radical changes in govern- 
* Parkman, Frontenac; Lorin, Le Comte de Frontenac. 


ment. In New York the situation was particularly 
serious ; at Albany the local civil and military offi- 
cers organized themselves in a convention which for 
several months maintained its independence of the 
Leisler government at New York/ 

After the new constitutional arrangements of 
1 68 9-1 69 2 were worked out, there was still no effec- 
tive concentration of military authority, though 
some efforts were made in that direction. Sir Will- 
iam Phips received a commission, not only as gov- 
ernor of Massachusetts, but as commander-in-chief 
of all the New England militia; and Governor 
Fletcher, of New York, was given a similar author- 
ity in Connecticut and the Jerseys, besides holding 
for two years the king's commission as governor 
of Pennsylvania. Both governors met with resist- 
ance in the colonies and were imable to enforce the 
authority thus conferred. At different times during 
the war other methods of securing co-operation were 
attempted. In 1 690 a convention of the northern col- 
onies was held in New York and plans were made for 
what proved to be an unsuccessful movement against 
Canada. In 1693, Governor Fletcher called a meet- 
ing of commissioners from the different colonies to 
meet at New York, but it was poorly attended. It 
called upon the various colonial governments to 
contribute definite sums of money or quotas of 
militia. A few contributions were received ; but the 
final results were unsatisfactory and Fletcher de- 
^J^oc. Hist, of N. y., n., 80, 147. 


clared that the English colonies were as badly divided 
as Christian and Turk.^ 

Under these conditions decisive operations were 
hardly to be expected on either side. The resources 
of Canada, though on the whole efficiently organ- 
ized, were insufficient for large offensive operations, 
and the English failed to use effectively their ad- 
vantages in population and wealth. A few large 
operations were planned on both sides, some of 
which were seriously attempted, only to end in 
humiliating failure; others were abandoned almost 
at the outset as impracticable. The military en- 
terprises of this war were, therefore, generally on 
a small scale, taking the form of mere raids on the 
enemy's frontier, with the help usually of Indian 

^ Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1689-1692, p. 572, 1693-1696, pp. 
28, 63; A^. Y.Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., III., 855-860; IV., 29-227, 
passim; Doc. Hist, of N. Y., II., 239. 



'AR was formally declared between England 

V Y and France in April, 1689, but in some of the 
colonies it was not proclaimed until several months 
later, and the most important operations of that 
year were in the West Indies. There the advantage 
was temporarily with the French, and in the summer 
of 1689 they seized the English part of St. Christo- 
pher. Urgent appeals were made by the islanders 
for an EngHsh fleet, but none could be sent out 
until the following year. Fortimately, the new 
governor of the Leeward Islands, Sir Christopher 
Codrington, a man of imusual ability, made an 
energetic defence, and no further losses followed.^ 

On the North American main-land the chief feat- 
ure of the year was a series of Indian raids on the 
New England frontier, where, during the previous 
winter, Andros had sent an expedition against the 
Maine Indians. He established a number of fron- 
tier posts extending as far north as Pemaquid; but 
on the fall of his government these garrisons were 
^ Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1689-1692, pp. 21, iir, 118-123. 



either recalled altogether or reduced, and the Ind- 
ians were encouraged to renew their raids. In 
June they attacked and ruined the village of Cocheco, 
near Dover, New Hampshire, killing or capturing 
a large number of the inhabitants. In August an 
Indian party, led by the French Baron de St. Castin, 
captured the fort at Pemaquid and massacred the 
inhabitants of the adjacent village. These disasters 
aroused the government of Massachusetts. A con- 
siderable force was raised and sent to the frontier, 
Casco (Portland) was relieved from a siege by the 
Indians, and an unsuccessful retaliating expedition 
was undertaken by the well-known Indian fighter 
Benjamin Church,^ 

The French also suffered seriously from Indian 
attacks. The Iroquois, thoroughly exasperated by 
Denonville's attacks, made a succession of raids on 
the French settlements of the upper St. Lawrence. 
At Lachine, in the immediate vicinity of Montreal, 
several htmdred persons were butchered by the Ind- 
ians or carried into captivity. When Frontenac 
arrived in the province, two months later, he re- 
ported that the colonists were still terrified and de- 
jected by the blow. Meanwhile, Callieres, the gov- 
ernor of Montreal, proposed an elaborate plan for 
the conquest of New York by a land expedition 
from Montreal co-operating with a naval force sent 

^ Drake, Border Wars of New England, chaps, ii.-v.; Andros 
Tracts, III., 21-38; A^. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., IX., 440; 
Church, History of tlie Eastern Expeditions (ed. of 1867) , 1-37. 


out from France. This plan, though accepted in sub- 
stance by the king and embodied in instructions to 
Frontenac, was found impracticable at that time. 

Frontenac now undertook to bring the Iroquois 
to terms by a vigorous show of force, and to check 
the English offensive through a series of border 
raids. In the winter and spring of 1690 three war 
parties were sent out against the English frontier, 
each composed of Canadians and Indians and led 
by French officers. The first blow fell on Schenec- 
tady in February, 1690, and the capture of the post 
was followed by a wholesale butchery of the in- 
habitants. The sense of horror which this outrage 
produced in the neighboring town of Albany was 
strongly expressed a few days later by Mayor Peter 
Schuyler: " The Cruelties committed at said Place 
no Penn can write nor Tongue expresse : the women 
bigg with Childe rip'd up and the Children alive 
throwne into the flames, and there heads dash'd in 
pieces against the Doors and windows." The two 
other parties attacked and destroyed the village of 
Salmon Falls, in New Hampshire, and the fort and 
village at Casco (Portland) on the Maine coast. 
From various points on the long, exposed frontier 
news of similar disasters were sent to the govern- 
ment at Boston.* 

^N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., IX., 408-435, 466-473; An- 

dros Tracts, III., 114; Sev^aXX, Diary , I., 311-321; Cal. of State 
Pap., Col., 1689-1692, p. 240; on this war, see also Thwaites, 
France in America {Am. Nation, VII.), chaps, ii., vi. 

VOL. VI. — 10 


These losses by land, accompanied by others on 
the sea, suffered by New England merchantmen at 
the hands of French privateers, soon made evident 
the necessity of more aggressive measures. The 
first important offensive movement on the English 
side was undertaken by the New-Englanders. Dur- 
ing the winter and early spring of 1690 they had 
been preparing an expedition against Port Royal, 
which was a base for French privateering opera- 
tions as well as for raids against the English frontier. 
For this purpose a fleet of about seven vessels was 
collected and an infantry force of about four hun- 
dred and fifty men. The command was given to 
Sir William Phips, himself a native of the Maine 
frontier, a daring and adventurous sea-captain, but 
without special fitness for military command. The 
fleet sailed from Boston, April 28, entered Port 
Royal harbor about ten days later, and the French 
commander yielded almost at once. The settlement 
was plundered, and the Puritan feeling showed it- 
self in some wanton destruction of Catholic church 
property. The inhabitants of Port Royal and the 
surrounding country were then compelled to take 
the oath of allegiance to William and Mary.^ 

This conquest of Acadia was a comparatively 
simple matter, but before Phips 's return to Boston 
the colonists had planned the far more serious en- 

^ Parkman, Frontenac (ed. of 1878), 236-243; iV. Y. Docs. Rel. 
to Col. Hist., IX., 474; Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1689-1692, pp. 
240, 275. 


terprise of taking Quebec and completely expelling 
the French from Canada. At the congress in New 
York in the spring of 1690 representatives of New 
York, Massachusetts, Plymouth, and Connecticut 
arranged for a land force to move northward by way 
of Lake Champlain against Montreal. To the pro- 
posed movement by sea, the Massachusetts dele- 
gates would not pledge their colony; but after the 
capture of Port Royal it was determined to carry 
out that part of the plan also. 

Definite quotas for the land expedition were as- 
signed to Massachusetts, Connecticut, Plymouth, 
Maryland, and to New York, which was held respon- 
sible for about half of the total. After considerable 
disagreement, Fit z- John Winthrop, of Connecticut, 
was appointed by Leisler to command the expedi- 
tion. When, however, the time came for the ad- 
vance, it was found that the quotas had not been 
filled ; the Iroquois allies also failed to perform their 
part; and the main expedition was finally aban- 
doned, though a small volunteer force, under John 
Schuyler, gave some annoyance to Frontenac by 
attacking the French settlement of La Prairie, op- 
posite Montreal.^ 

In the mean time preparations had been going 
forward at Boston for the expedition against Que- 
bec, and Phips's easy success at Port Royal led to 
his selection for this larger responsibility. The re- 

^Doc. Hist, of N. Y., II., 237-288; N, Y. Docs. Rel to CoL 
Hist., IV., 193-196, 


sources of the colony were strained to provide the 
necessary men and supplies. The fleet was com- 
posed of merchantmen and fishing-vessels, and the 
officers were generally untrained men. An unsuc- 
cessful effort was made to secure the co-operation of 
the home government, and finally, after numerous 
delays, the fleet left Boston harbor on August 9, 
1690. No pilot had been provided for the St. 
Lawrence, and there was another long delay in the 
river, so that the fleet did not appear before Quebec 
until the middle of October. Phips at once sent a 
demand for immediate surrender, but the golden 
moment had passed.* 

Less than a week earlier Frontenac had received, 
at Montreal, his first intimation of a possible Eng- 
lish attack on Quebec. Acting with a promptness 
and decision which appear in marked contrast with 
the conduct of the enemy, he hastened to Quebec, 
giving orders for the despatch of reinforcements. 
The defences of the city were strengthened, and 
when the messengers from Phips arrived, Frontenac 
treated the summons with studied contempt. In 
accordance with their plan for a joint attack, the 
English then landed about twelve hundred men a 
little below the city, but the expected co-operation 
of the fleet was not given ; and in the mean time the 
garrison of Quebec was strengthened by the arrival 

* Parkman, Frontenac, chap, xii.; Hutchinson, Hist, of Mass. 
Bay, I., App.; Cal. of State Pap., Col., 16S9-1692, pp. 240, 385, 


of several hundred men from MontreaL After some 
indecisive skirmishing on land and an ineffective 
bombardment by the fleet, the landing force re- 
turned in confusion to the ships. After some hesi- 
tation it was decided to abandon the siege and re- 
turn to Boston. The losses in action had been small 
on both sides, but the New - Englanders suffered 
severely from disease.^ 

The expedition had involved Massachusetts in 
heavy loss, both of men and money, and the chief 
officers were severely criticised. Major Walley, the 
commander of the land forces, prepared a brief de- 
fence, naming the following reasons for the disap- 
pointment: "The land army's failing, the enemy's 
too timely intelligence, lyeing 3 weeks within 3 
days' sail of the place, by reason whereof they 
had the opportunity to bring in the whole strength 
of their country, the shortness of our ammunition, 
our late setting out, our long passidge, and many 
sick in the army." ^ 

Frontenac appealed to his king for more aggres- 
sive measures. He suggested the employment of 
the royal navy in punishing the insolence of these 
veritable and old parliamentarians of Boston; in 
storming them, as well as those of Manath [New 
York] in their dens, and conquering these two 
towns whereby would be secured the entire coast." 

* Parkman, Frontenac, chap. xiii. ; Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1689- 
1692, pp. 377, 385, 41 5 ; N . Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., IX., 455- 
461. ^Journal, in Hutchinson, Hist, of Mass. Bay., I., App. 


For large enterprises of this kind, however, Louis 
XIV. was not then prepared/ 

While preparations were being made in Boston 
for the unsuccessful expedition against Quebec, the 
British had won a substantial success in the West 
Indies. W^ith the help of an English fleet St. 
Christopher was retaken, in 1690, and the French 
driven altogether from the island. The colonists 
hoped for the complete expulsion of the French 
from the West Indies, but the later years of the 
war were almost wholly lacking in events of de- 
cisive importance.^ 

On the New England frontier the war consisted 
mainly of French and Indian raids like those of 
1689 and 1690, and some rather ineffective retalia- 
tory expeditions by the New-Englanders. In 1691 
a new French governor, Villebon, was sent to Acadia; 
he easily recovered Port Royal and established him- 
self at Naxouat, on the St. John's River. With the 
help of the Jesuits the Abenaki Indians were again 
aroused and led against the Maine frontier. York 
was destroyed in February, 1692, and a determined 
but unsuccessful attack was made upon Wells. 
There was also a series of small raids on the towns 
of central Massachusetts.^ 

' N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., IX., 461, 494. 

^ Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1689-1692, pp. 186-195, 278, 291- 
294, 303. 712, 1693-1696, pp. 39-43> 79. 86, 92. 

^Ibid., 1689-1692, 560; N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., IX., 
526; Parkman, Frontenac, 347-356; Drake, Border Warsoj New 
England, chaps, viii., ix. 


In 1692, Phips returned from England with a 
commission under the new charter as governor of 
the enlarged province of Massachusetts. For the 
kind of military service now required he was better 
fitted than for the larger enterprise of 1690. Act- 
ing under royal instructions, he rebuilt the fort of 
Pemaquid, and in 1693 made a treaty there with 
representatives of the Abenaki Indians. Never- 
theless, through the efforts of the daring French 
officer Villieu and the Jesuit missionary Thury, 
the warlike faction among the Indians regained the 
ascendency and the war began again. The Oyster 
River settlement, in New Hampshire, was destroyed 
in 1694, and a raid on Groton, about thirty miles 
from Boston, brought the war still nearer home to 
the people of Massachusetts. 

In 1696, after a few minor raids on the Maine 
and New Hampshire borders, a French expedition 
commanded by Le Moyne d' Iberville again de- 
stroyed Pemaquid, and the New England fisheries 
were seriously depressed by Iberville's destruction 
of the English settlements on the eastern shore 
of Newfoundland. English attempts at retaliation 
were only partially successful: an expedition un- 
der Church plundered and burned the French set- 
tlement of Beaubassin at the head of the Bay of 
Fundy, but a subsequent attack on the French 
at Naxouat was repulsed. Massachusetts was so 
much discouraged by the situation in Acadia that 
the general court asked that the province be re- 


lieved from further expense in defence of Port 
Royal or the St. John's River. The closing months 
of the war were marked by murderous forays on the 
interior towns of Massachusetts. In March, 1697, 
occurred the Haverhill raid, made famous in colo- 
nial annals by the capture of Hannah Dustin 
and her subsequent escape by the killing of her 
captors. In February, 1698, several months after 
peace had been proclaimed in London, the Ind- 
ians made another raid as far south as Ando- 
ver. Taken individually, these French and Indian 
forays seem tmimportant, but in the aggregate 
they constituted a serious check on the expan- 
sion of the colonies beyond the older settled 
areas. ^ 

From time to time more ambitious enterprises 
were discussed on both sides. Phips was not dis- 
couraged by his failure at Quebec, and continued 
to urge the conquest of Canada. In the summer of 
1693 a fleet under Sir Francis Wheeler arrived at Bos- 
ton from the West Indies, under orders to co-operate 
with the Massachusetts government in another at- 
tack on Quebec, but its effective force had been 
much reduced by disease, and Phips argued that 
it was now too late to prepare for an attack that 
year. The plan was therefore abandoned, and 

^ Sewall, Diary, 1., 391; Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1693-1696, 
pp. 149, 157; Drake, Border Wars of New England, chaps., xi.- 
xiv.; Parkman, Frontenac, 361-391; Hutchinson, Hist, of Mass. 
Bay (ed. of 1795), II., 88-104; N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., 
IX., 664. 


during the remaining years of the war Quebec was 
not seriously threatened.^ 

On the French side, the idea of a naval attack 
on Boston and New York repeatedly appears in 
the official correspondence, but without definite ac- 
tion, until the last year of the war, when a detailed 
plan was worked out for a strong fleet from France, 
under the command of the Marquis de Nesmond, 
to be joined on the Maine coast by a force of Ind- 
ians and fifteen hundred troops from Canada. It 
was thought that Boston could be easily captured, 
and it was proposed aftenvards to destroy the lead- 
ing towns to the northward. The fleet actually set 
sail from France, but arrived too late to accom- 
plish its purpose.^ 

On the New York frontiers the contest was quite 
as much diplomatic as military. The English 
wished to keep the Iroquois aggressively on their 
side and to enforce their view that these tribes 
were dependent on the English crown. On the 
other hand, the French were constantly seeking to 
detach the Iroquois from the English alliance and 
compel them to a separate peace. The western 
Indians, especially those of the lake region, also 
formed a factor in the problem. Their trade was 
essential to the prosperity of Quebec, and the French 

^ Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1693-1696, pp. 13, 31, 124. 

2 Charlevoix, History of New France (Shea's trans.), V., 69- 
73; N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., IX., 659-661 ; Parkman, Fron- 
tenac, 382-384. 


therefore desired not only to protect them against 
Iroquois attacks, but also to prevent their reaching 
an understanding with the Five Nations which 
might result in the diversion of the western trade 
to the English. 

In this peculiar contest of diplomacy and Indian 
warfare, the chief figure on the French side was, of 
course, Frontenac. He found on his return to 
Canada that the French prestige, even among the 
western Indians, had been seriously impaired. Just 
before his arrival the danger from the Iroquois had 
been emphasized by the fearful massacre of La- 
chine, and the western trade was almost cut off. 
Frontenac first undertook to secure peace by ne- 
gotiations with the Five Nations; and when that 
failed, to revive French prestige by striking a series 
of severe blows against the English and their Iro- 
quois allies. Until the Iroquois could be forced to 
terms, the breach between them and the western 
Indians was, if possible, to be kept open.^ 

The chief representatives of the English interest 
in New York were the successive governors of the 
province, especially Fletcher, and an able Dutch- 
man, Peter Schuyler. Fletcher was afterwards 
severely censured for misconduct in other matters;^ 
but in the management of French and Indian affairs 
he showed considerable energy, and made, for a 
time at least, a favorable impression upon the Iro- 

1 Lorin, Le Comte de Frontenac, pt. ii., chap, iv., pt. iii., chap. i. 

2 N. Y. Docs. Rel to Col Hist., IV., 479-486. 


quois. It is difficult to say what he would have 
accomplished with larger resources within his own 
province and heartier co-operation from the neigh- 
boring colonies. The most important work on the 
frontier was done by a little group of Dutch colonists 
at Albany, of whom the most conspicuous was Peter 
Schuyler, who began his official career under Gov- 
ernor Dongan. He became the first mayor of Albany, 
and chairman of the board of commissioners of Ind- 
ian affairs. Under the Leisler government he was 
out of favor, but in the later years of the war the 
value of his services was recognized by making 
him a councillor in the provincial government and 
its chief agent and adviser on the northern frontier.^ 

After the fiasco of 1690 the New York govern- 
ment undertook no serious military movement, 
though the desirability of an attack on Canada was 
strongly urged by the Iroquois and was recognized 
by Governor Fletcher. The resources of the prov- 
ince were considered inadequate to such an under- 
taking without the effective co-operation of the 
home government and the neighboring colonies, and 
such co-operation was not to be had. During the 
last six years of the war the burden fell almost 
wholly on the Iroquois.^ 

While the English remained comparatively in- 
active, the Five Nations were being gradually weak- 
ened by the aggressive measures of Frontenac. In 

* Schuyler, Colonial New York, I., 302 et seq. 
2 N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., IV., 23, 32, 74. 


1693 a force of several hundred French and Indians 
attacked and destroyed three Mohawk villages. In 
the same year an expedition to Mackinac strength- 
ened the French influence among the western Ind- 
ians and revived their trade with Montreal. These 
reverses and the inactivity of the English seriously 
weakened the Iroquois alliance. In 1694, confer- 
ences were held by some of the Iroquois with the 
French, but Frontenac refused to accept any peace 
which did not include his Indian allies, and insisted 
'that the English should not be considered in the 
negotiations. The English influence was still strong 
enough to prevent a peace on these terms, and the 
war continued.^ 

In 1696 the French prestige in the west was 
strengthened by two aggressive measures. One was 
the re-establishment of Fort Frontenac, which had 
been abandoned by Denonville, but which Frontenac 
considered of great importance for the defence of 
French interests in the west. The other was a 
formidable expedition against the Iroquois, com- 
posed of French regulars, Canadian militia, and sev- 
eral hundred Indians, with Frontenac himself in 
command. The Onondagas, who were the special 
object of attack, retired before this superior force, 
so that the French had to content themselves with 
the destruction of food and of the growing crops. 
Though this expedition, standing by itself, was in- 

»iV. Y. Docs., Rel. to Col. Hist., IV., 118, IX., 550-555, 577- 
584; cf. Parkman, Frontenac, chap. xiv. 


decisive, the long continuance of the war had so 
seriously impaired the fighting strength of the Five 
Nations that, according to an official report made 
in 1698 by order of the English governor, the num- 
ber of their men had been reduced by one-half.* 

The operations of the American war were, on 
the whole, indecisive, though the French could count 
some considerable strokes against the enemy during 
the closing months. In the west, French prestige 
was notably higher than at the beginning of hos- 
tilities. On the seaboard, Pemaquid had been taken 
and the fishing interests of New England had been 
seriously depressed by Iberville's operations in New- 
foimdland. Finally, the French had gained an im- 
portant advantage in the Hudson Bay region 
through Iberville's capture of Fort Nelson in 1697.^ 
These military operations were, nevertheless, too 
small to affect negotiations for peace, and the 
American provisions of the treaty of Ryswick were 
only minor incidents in the general European set- 
tlement between Louis XIV. and the allies. 

In America, as in Europe, the treaty of Ryswick, 
in 1697, brought no real settlement of the questions 
at issue. It was agreed that the two contending 
parties should retain the possessions which they 
held at the beginning of the war ; but the boundary 
disputes then existing were not adjusted, although 

» N. y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., IV., 337, IX., 640-659. 
2 Parkman, Frontenac, 391-394; Lorin, Le Comte de Frontenac, 


commissioners were to be appointed by the two 

Before peace could be definitely established in 
America, both sides were obliged to negotiate with 
the Indians. On the New England border the war 
was closed by a treaty between the government of 
Massachusetts and the Abenaki Indians at Casco 
Bay in January, 1699.^ The position of the Iro- 
quois was quite different from that of the eastern 
Indians, for the English assumed that the Five 
Nations were dependent upon the English crown, 
and hence included in the peace between France and 
England. Acting on this assumption, the Earl of 
Bellomont, the new governor of New York and 
i\Iassachusetts, demanded of Frontenac the sur- 
render of all prisoners in his hands, including the 
Iroquois as well as the English, promising in return 
the release of French prisoners held by the Iroquois. 
Frontenac rejected the theory of English sover- 
eignty over the Iroquois, and insisted upon separate 
negotiations with them. There was an angrv^ cor- 
respondence between the two governors, and when 
Frontenac died, in 1698, the controversy was still 
unsettled. The English used all their efforts to 
prevent the Iroquois from conferring with the 
French; but they suffered a serious diplomatic de- 
feat when, in 1701, under the auspices of the French 

* TreaXy in Memoir es des Commissaires (Paris, 1755) , II., 92-ioS. 
2 Drake, Border Wars of New England, chap, xiv.; Hutchin- 
son, Hist, of Mass. Bay (ed. of 1795), II., 104. 




governor Callieres, a general peace was concluded 
between the French and their Indian allies on the 
one side and the Iroquois on the other. ^ 

* Parkman, Frontenac, 423-426, 438-452; N. Y. Docs. Rel. to 
Col. Hist., IV., passim., esp. 564-573, IX., 690-695, 715-725. 


(i 700-1 709) 

THE treaty of Ryswick failed to bring, either 
in Europe or America, a settlement of the es- 
sential issues. The problem of the Spanish suc- 
cession, which had troubled the statesmen of Europe 
for a generation, remained unsolved. Charles 11. , 
the reigning king of Spain, was an invalid and 
childless, and the succession was contested by the 
two leading dynasties of continental Europe; both 
the Austrian Hapsburgs and the Bourbons of France 
had claims based upon intermarriage with Spanish 
princesses. The complete triumph of either would 
have produced a political combination more serious 
than any in Europe since the days of Charles V., 
but the union of France and Spain seemed partic- 
ularly dangerous to those who wished to defenu 
the balance of power. 

The treaty of Ryswick was followed by prolonged 
negotiations in which Louis XIV., William III., and 
the Hapsburg emperor were the chief participants. 
A compromise which gave the Spanish crown to a 
minor personage, the electoral prince of Bavaria, and 




allowed certain concessions of territory to the French 
and Austrian claimants, was soon nullified by the 
death of the young Bavarian prince. Renewed 
negotiations between the English and Dutch gov- 
ernments on the one side, and Louis XIV. on the 
other, resulted in the second partition treaty of 
1700, by which Spain, with the Spanish Nether- 
lands and the colonies, was assigned to an Austrian 
prince and the important possessions in Italy to 
the French Dauphin. Again, however, the work 
of diplomacy was undone; for in the same year 
Charles II. died, leaving by will all the Spanish 
dominions to Philip of Anjou, a younger grandson 
of Louis XIV. Louis accepted the will, and with 
his support Philip established himself on the Spanish 

This Bourbon succession was at once contested 
by the Austrians, but it was at first doubtful whether 
they would receive general support. To William 
III. the desirability of resistance was clear, but his 
English subjects were not yet convinced that their 
own interests were at stake. Again, as in 1689, 
this conviction was forced on them by the French 
king himself. Their anxiety was first aroused by 
his occupation of border fortresses in the Spanish 
Netherlands, previously secured by Dutch garrisons. 
In September, 1701, there came news of French 
edicts excluding British manufactures. The French 
seemed also to be reaching after a monopoly of the 

* Von Noorden, Spanische Erbfolge-Krieg, I., 97-118. 

VOL. VI. — II 


Spanish-American trade, to the serious detriment 
of English interests. Finally, in the same year, 
Louis XIV. again challenged the national spirit of 
the English people by acknowledging, on the death 
of James II., his son, "the Pretender," as James 
III., king of England. There was soon a decided 
change of feeling in England, and the newly elected 
Parliament gave its cordial support to the king's 
war policy. Before war was actually declared, 
King William died, but the accession of Anne and 
the choice of new ministers brought no change in 
the foreign policy of the government. Under the 
leadership of Marlborough, England became more 
than ever the predominant partner in the coalition 
against France.* 

Aside from the sentiment of national indepen- 
dence challenged by Louis' acknowledgment of 
the Pretender, the primary interest of England in 
the War of the Spanish Succession was to prevent 
the close union of France and Spain which seemed 
likely if Philip V. were allowed to keep his crown. 
This was not merely a question of continental 
European politics, but even more largely one of 
commercial competition. During the later years of 
the Spanish Hapsburgs the English and the Dutch 
had, lawfully or unlawfully, secured for themselves 
an important part of the Spanish trade, including 

* Von Noorden, Spanische Erbfolge-Krteg, I., 11 9- 121, 125- 
139, 172-179; Stanhope, England, i^oi-iyij (ed. of 1870), 11; 
Grimblot, Letters of William III. and Louis XIV., II., 477-479. 



that of the American colonies. There was reason 
to suppose that tinder a Bourbon prince stricter 
regulations would be enforced, that special privi- 
lege enjoyed by the English would be withdrawn, 
and that the French would use their political power 
to exploit the Spanish trade. 

This emphasis on commercial interests, and es- 
pecially upon colonial trade, appears repeatedly in 
the diplomatic representations of the British gov- 
ernment, from the foundation of the coalition until 
the final settlement. Thus, in the secret treaty be- 
tween England, the Netherlands, and the Austrian 
emperor in 1701, there were included as indis- 
pensable conditions of a settlement with France, not 
only the exclusion of the French from the trade of 
the Spanish Indies, but also the securing to English 
and Dutch merchants of all the commercial privi- 
leges enjoyed by them imder the late king. The 
same treaty reserved to the Dutch and the English 
the right to make conquests in the Spanish Indies. 
Similar views were expressed in the English treaty 
with the Austrian claimant in 1706, and in the 
preliminary articles proposed by England in the 
peace negotiations of 1709 and 17 11. Thus one of 
the leading issues of the war was in part, at least, 

^ Von Noorden, Spanische Erbfolge-Krieg, I., 46-51, 162, II., 
224, III., 504; Stanhope, England, lyoi-iyi^, p. 490; Boling- 
broke, Letters and Correspoivdence, I., 374-381, notes; of. Mahan, 
^ea Power, 203. 


In the preceding wars the resources of Spain were, 
in a measure at least, at the service of the coalition. 
In 1702, however, its government was in the hands 
of the French party and the authority of Philip V. 
was recognized at once in the American colonies. 
For the first time the English in North America 
had to face an alliance of the two great Latin powers ; 
and for South Carolina and the British West Indies 
this was a serious danger. 

The great engagements of this war were fought 
on the continent of Europe, and the victories of 
Marlborough and Prince Eugene were probably the 
most important factors in forcing France to terms. 
Yet one of the most marked features of the struggle 
was the steady decline in the naval power of France 
and the steady advance in that of England. Eng- 
land gained at the expense of the Dutch as well as 
of the French, and by the close of the war had be- 
come unquestionably the leading maritime pow- 
er. This naval superiority produced, however, no 
marked results in the American war. Though the 
French navy declined because of official neglect, 
English colonial trade suffered severely at the hands 
of French privateers, especially from the West India 

As the European conflict approached, it was 
probably not materially hastened by any crisis in 
North America. In fact, there was a strong dis- 
position among the French to maintain peace in 

^ Mahan, Sea Power, 217-231. 

1709] QUEEN ANNE'S WAR 141 

America. A French state paper of 1701 contains 
an elaborate project for the conquest of the northern 
EngHsh colonies, but ends with the opinion that, 
after all, the neutrality of North America would 
be preferable to war and would be infinitely more 
advantageous for Canada. Proposals for neutrality 
were afterwards made by Governor Dudley, of 
Massachusetts, and accepted in principle, not only 
by Governor Vaudreuil at Quebec, but by the 
French authorities at home. Upon the precise 
terms, however, the two governors could not agree. ^ 

On the New York frontier the peculiar position 
of the Iroquois resulted in a sort of partial neu- 
trality which was maintained during the greater 
part of the war. Since, after a long and harassing 
conflict, the Canadian government had just brought 
the Five Nations into peaceable treaty relations, 
it was considered very important that these rela- 
tions should be maintained. Conferences were held 
with the Iroquois and assurances of neutrality were 
secured. In view, however, of the close relations 
which had long existed between these Indians and 
the authorities at Albany, it seemed doubtful 
whether, in case of actual war between the French 
and the English, the Iroquois could be prevented 
from taking sides with the latter. For this reason 
the French refrained from attacking New York. 
The English and Dutch of New York found it al- 
most equally their interest to preserve the peace. 

* AT. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., IX., 725-728, 770-776, 779. 


Thus for several years New York was protected from 
Indian incursions and the Indian trade was freely 
continued both with Albany and Montreal.^ 

The attitude of the French towards New England 
was quite different. The Indians of that region 
had been under Jesuit influence and closely allied 
with the French, but there was some anxiety lest 
they might be reconciled with the English and 
take sides with them. The Marquis de Vaudreuil, 
who in 1703 became governor of New France, 
argued that the English and the Abenakis must be 
kept "irreconcilable enemies," and he therefore in- 
stigated these Indians to attacks on the New Eng- 
land frontier, in which the converted Iroquois of 
the French mission were also engaged. The gov- 
ernment in France expressed some misgivings with 
regard to this policy at first, but its opposition does 
not seem to have been serious.^ 

The peculiar neutral attitude of New York, while 
the New England settlements were exposed to the 
horrors of border warfare, provoked sharp criticism. 
The New-Englanders suspected that their own safety 
was being sacrificed in order that the men at 
Albany might carry on a profitable trade. From 
time to time they attempted to secure the help of 
the Iroquois in their war with the eastern Indians, 

^N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist.,V., 42, IX., 736-739, 742- 
745; Schuyler, Colonial New York, II., 13-26; Parkman, Half- 
Century of Conflict, I., 11-14. 

2 A^. y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist.y IX., 755-760, 804. 

1709] QUEEN ANNE'S WAR 143 

but were always blocked by opposition from New 
York. It was not until 1709 that that province 
was willing to promise its support and that of the 
Indian allies for a general movement against the 
French. Sometimes, however, the Schuylers at Al- 
bany rendered the New-Englanders substantial ser- 
vice by warning them of impending French and Ind- 
ian raids. Samuel Penhallow, a contemporary New 
England writer, notes the timely warning given on the 
eve of the Deerfield massacre by Colonel Schuyler 
who was always a kind and faithful intelligencer." ^ 
The history of the American war may be con- 
veniently divided into two periods. The first 
covers the seven years from 1702 to 1709, and is 
characterized for the northern colonies chiefly by 
French and Indian raids on the New England 
frontier, followed by generally ineffective attempts 
at reprisal, especially on the part of the Massa- 
chusetts government. There was also a large 
amount of commerce - destroying, in which New 
England suffered severely from French privateers, 
especially those from the West Indies and Port 
Royal. On the sea, however, the New-Englanders 
were able to give a better account of themselves 
than on land, and considerable damage was in- 
flicted upon French commerce and fisheries. Mean- 
while, South CaroHna, in even greater isolation, was 

^ Penhallow, Wars of New England (ed. of 1859), 24, 35, 43; 
Schuyler, Colonial New York, 11., 20, 24; N. Y. Docs. Rel. to 
Col. Hist., v., 42. 


engaged in a serious conflict with the Spaniards of 
Florida, aided not merely by Indian allies, but also 
by French forces from the West Indies. 

The intervening colonies were less directly in- 
volved in the war, but their commerce was exposed 
to attack. The English government, at consider- 
able expense, provided naval vessels to convoy the 
fleets that sailed at intervals from Massachusetts 
or Virginia or Barbadoes, besides guard-ships to 
patrol the coasts; but these precautions did not 
always prevent serious loss. Even Pennsylvania, 
where the Quakers were doing their utmost to keep 
out of the war, had to feel at times the blows of 
the enemy. James Logan, Penn's agent in the 
province, writes repeatedly of the annoyance caused 
by the "Martinico privateers." In 1708 he ob- 
served that after a period of comparative peace, 
"these coasts begin to be intolerably infested," and 
that within four days ''three vessels of this river" 
had been sunk and burned, including one "just off 
our own capes." The next year he noted the 
plunder of a neighboring town by a French priva- 

In the second period, from 1709 to 17 13, the Eng- 
lish were more aggressive. Larger enterprises were 
undertaken, there was more co-operation among the 
colonies, and there were also considerable reinforce- 
ments from England. These larger plans, however, 

^ Penn- Logan Correspondence, I., 240, 289, 301, II., 123, 275, 
348; Chalmers, Revolt, I., 354. 

1704] QUEEN ANNE'S WAR 145 

were seriously impaired by poor leadership and de- 
fective organization, and the results accomplished 
were relatively small. 

Notwithstanding the formal declaration of war, 
in 1702, there was no serious outbreak on the New 
England border that year. In 1703, Joseph Dudley, 
who had recently been appointed governor of Mas- 
sachusetts and New Hampshire, and thus exercised 
jurisdiction over practically the whole territory ex- 
posed to Indian attacks, held a conference with the 
Abenaki tribes at Casco, on the Maine frontier. A 
treaty of peace was then agreed to by the Indians, 
but within two months, under the influence of the 
French Jesuits, they reopened the war by a destruc- 
tive raid which almost wiped out the Maine settle- 
ments. In 1704 occurred the most serious disaster 
of the whole war in New England, the massacre at 
Deerfield, then the northwestern outpost of settle- 
ment in the Connecticut valley. The town was at- 
tacked by a force of Indians, accompanied by a few 
Frenchmen, imder the lead of a well-known partisan 
chief, Hertel de Rouville. Men, women, and chil- 
dren were butchered, and about a hundred prisoners 
carried off to Canada. The most conspicuous of the 
prisoners was the Reverend John Williams, pastor 
of the church, who left a record of the hardships 
experienced by himself and his associates in cap- 
tivity. Many of the weaker prisoners died or were 
murdered by their captors. Of those who finally 
reached Canada, some were ultimately exchanged 



and returned to their homes; but others, especially 
the children, yielded to the efforts of the Catholic 
missionaries or were so much influenced by their 
Indian captors that they were unwilling to be re- 

Even more characteristic of the border warfare 
than this Deerfield expedition were the innumer- 
able frontier raids made by comparatively small 
bodies of French and Indians, or of Indians alone. 
In this, as in the previous war, the ravages of the 
enemy were not confined to Maine, New Hamp- 
shire, and the remote Connecticut valley towns. 
The Indian war-parties penetrated into the eastern 
counties of Massachusetts, even to such towns as 
Reading and Sudbury, within a few miles of Boston, 
and Haverhill, which suffered one of the most de- 
structive raids of the whole war. Many of these 
expeditions were sent out by Governor Vaudreuil, 
and he had the efficient co-operation of the French 
missionaries. In 1703 the Jesuit Father Rale re- 
ported that the Abenakis would take up the hatchet 
whenever he pleased; and Vaudreuil noted com- 
placently afterwards that the small parties sent out 
had not failed "seriously to inconvenience the Eng- 
lish." The French government at home ultimately 
gave its approval of this savage warfare; in 1707, 
Pontchartrain, the French colonial minister, told 
Vaudreuil that he did well "to write to the Mission- 

^ Penhallow, Wars of New England (ed. of 1859), 16-23; 
Drake, Border Wars of New England, chaps, xvi., xviii. 


aries among the Abenakis to have the war continued 
against the English." ^ 

Against these terrible onslaughts there seemed 
to be no certain means of defence. The line of ex- 
posed settlements was too long to be continuously 
defended ; the precise point of attack could rarely be 
anticipated ; and the communications were slow and 
uncertain. It was during the winter of 1 703-1 704, 
while Massachusetts and New Hampshire had nearly 
nine hundredmen in service, that the disaster occurred 
at Deerfield. From time to time small retaliatory 
expeditions were sent out, and, if successful, they 
returned with Indian scalps, for which the provin- 
cial government offered liberal bounties. Penhallow 
tells of one such party sent up the Connecticut from 
Northampton in 1704, consisting of Mr. Caleb 
Lyman (subsequently elder of a church in Boston) 
and five friendly Indians. After ten days' absence 
the party returned, having killed eight Indians and 
taken six scalps. It was estimated, however, that 
every Indian killed or taken had cost the English at 
least £1000. To the direct charges of the war 
must be added the wide-spread destruction of prop- 
erty on land, and the serious damage done to New 
England fisheries and commerce by the French 

^N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., IX. 755-760, 804; Drake, 
Border Wars, passim; Penhallow, Wars of New England, passim. 

2 Penhallow, Wars of New England, 25, 31-33, 48, 57; Drake, 
Border Wars, passim, esp, 251. 


In 1705, Governor Dudley attempted to solve the 
problem by proposing the neutrality of the colonies, 
but he refused to accept Vaudreuil's counter pro- 
posal that the New-Englanders should be excluded 
from the fisheries on the Acadian coasts. Under 
these circumstances the Indian problem could only 
be solved by striking at the French, who stood behind 
the savages. For measures of this sort, however, 
New England was poorly organized: the colonies of 
Rhode Island and Connecticut were still under in- 
dependent governments which could not be counted 
upon for continuous hearty support; and even in 
Massachusetts there were serious divisions. The 
governor, Joseph Dudley, though a man of ability, 
was regarded with great suspicion by many people 
under his jurisdiction. He was charged with com- 
plicity in an illegal trade which was being car- 
ried on with the enemy, and which undoubtedly 
increased unnecessarily their power for offensive 
measures against the English. These charges were 
doubtless much exaggerated, but so conservative a 
man as Samuel Sewall thought the governor not 
wholly free from blame.* 

Again, as in the earlier wars. New England suf- 
fered seriously from the absence of trained military 
leaders and a disciplined soldiery, with the result 

» A^. y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., IX., 770-772, 776, 779; Hutch- 
inson, Hist, of Mass. Bay (ed. of 1795), II., 141-148; Drake, 
Border Wars, 210-215; Mass. Hist., See, Collections^ 5th series, 
VI., 65-131*, esp. III*. 



that expeditions prepared with great enthusiasm 
and with considerable financial sacrifices often re- 
sulted in humiliating failures. The first retaliatory 
expedition on any considerable scale was that of 
Church in 1704, the last enterprise of that veteran 
fighter of King Philip's War. After unsuccessful 
efforts to find forces of French and Indians along 
the Maine coast, Church sailed to Acadia, ravaged 
the French settlements on the Bay of Fimdy, and 
took a number of prisoners. The expedition also 
entered Port Royal harbor, but the fort was not at- 
tacked ; and the failure to produce more positive re- 
sults called forth severe criticism both of Church 
and of Governor Dudley.* 

As the war proceeded, the importance of Acadia 
as a base for French operations against New Eng- 
land was keenly felt; and in 1707 a new expedition 
was organized against it, to which Rhode Island, 
New Hampshire, and Massachusetts contributed, 
though Connecticut held aloof. Two regiments 
commanded by Colonel March were sent by sea 
under convoy of a royal man-of-war and an armed 
vessel belonging to Massachusetts, and appeared 
before Port Royal in June, 1707, with some prospect 
of success. The French governor, Subercase, made 
a vigorous defence, and March, though an Indian 
fighter of good reputation and undoubted courage, 

^Penhallow, Wars of New England, 28-30; Hutchinson, Hist, 
of Mass. Bay (ed. of 1795), II., 132-135; Drake, Border Wars, 
chap. XX. 


proved unequal to his task. He finally lost heart 
and after some skirmishing abandoned the siege. 
There was great indignation in Boston at this 
fiasco, and Dudley sent peremptory orders to the 
fleet to return to the siege ; but the attacking force 
was now too demoralized, while the French had 
materially strengthened their position, so that the 
siege was a second time abandoned.^ 

While New England was waging this compara- 
tively ineffective warfare with the French and Ind- 
dians, the South-Carolinians had been making a 
creditable stand against their enemies. From its 
beginning the Carolina settlement had been jeal- 
ously watched by its Spanish neighbors at St. 
Augustine, who, in 1686 destroyed the Scotch set- 
tlement at Port Royal. The colonists were then 
eager to organize a retaliatory expedition, but were 
held back by the proprietary government. During 
the next sixteen years Spain and England were not 
only nominally at peace, but for a considerable time 
allies against France.^ By 1702, however, this re- 
straint upon the rival colonies was removed. 

Early in 1702, before the queen's proclamation of 
war was known in America, the Spaniards organized 
a force, composed mainly of Indian allies with a 
few whites, for a land attack upon South Carolina. 

* Parkman, Half-Century of Conflict, I., 120-127; Hutchinson, 
Hist, of Mass. Bay (ed. of 1795), II., 150-156; Penhallow, Wars 
of New England, $0- $2. 

2 McCrady, South Carolina under Proprietary Government^ 


The English traders, however, were warned by the 
friendly Creek Indians, and formed from them a 
strong opposing force, so that the invaders were 
surprised and routed. The South-Carolinians now 
determined to take the offensive, and in the autumn 
of 1702 sent a small fleet with several hundred 
provincial militia and Indians from Port Royal 
against St. Augustine. The town was destroyed 
but there was not enough artillery for a successful 
siege of the fort, and before the needed supplies 
could be secured, Governor Moore, who was in 
command of the expedition, was alarmed by the 
appearance of two hostile frigates and hastily re- 
treated. The South - Carolinians, like the New- 
Englanders before Port Royal, had involved them- 
selves in heavy expense with no tangible results. 

In the following year a new governor, Sir Na- 
thaniel Johnson, received his commission from the 
proprietors, and adopted in the main a defensive 
policy. Nevertheless, Colonel Moore was allowed 
to tmdertake a raid into the enemy's territory; and 
during the winter of 1 703-1 704 he fought a pitched 
battle with several hundred Indians under Spanish 
leaders. The English were completely victorious, 
and after ravaging the country returned with a 
large number of prisoners to Charleston.^ 

Two years now passed without any important 
operations, and the interval was used by Governor 

* McCrady, South Carolina under Proprietary Government^ 
377-396; Carroll, Collections, II., 348-353, 574. 


Johnson in guarding against possible invasion by 
land or sea. In 1706 a French and Spanish ex- 
pedition sailed from Havana under a French com- 
mander, ^Monsieur le Feboure, and, after receiving 
reinforcements at St. Augustine, appeared before 
Charleston, August 24. There was great anxiety 
in the town, which was already suffering a severe 
epidemic of yellow fever, but the governor faced 
the situation with admirable courage and energy. 
Mihtia were promptly brought in from the sur- 
roimding countr}^ ; and when, after three days' delay, 
the French commander presented his demand for 
surrender, he received a defiant response. The 
enemy then landed a part of his force, but one 
landing part}^ was defeated with considerable loss. 
The Carolinians now assumied the offensive and 
sent a small fleet against the invaders, whereupon 
the French commander hastily abandoned the at- 
tack and sailed away. Almost immediately after 
his departure another French man-of-war appeared, 
and, apparently in ignorance of the defeat of the 
fleet, entered Sewee Ba}^, a few miles northeast of 
Charleston. A small landing party sent out by 
the French commander was defeated and the ship 
itself was captured by the Charleston fleet. In a 
little more than a week the Carohnians had re- 
pelled a formidable invading force and taken over 
two hundred French and Spanish prisoners.^ 

' McCrady, South Carolina uiuier Proprietary Government^ 

1713] QUEEN ANNE'S WAR 153 

This historic defence of Charleston was the last 
important event of the war on the southern frontier. 
Neither party had been able to hold territory be- 
longing to the other, but the English inflicted more 
damage than they suffered, and were, on the whole, 
entitled to the honors of the conflict. 

VOL. VI. — 12 



AFTER seven years of indecisive conflict, during 
iV which the colonists had been left largely to 
their own resources, the English government began 
to direct its attention more seriously to the North 
American situation. The desirability of the con- 
quest of Canada had been repeatedly urged upon 
the home government, and now had an unusually 
zealous advocate in the person of Colonel Samuel 
Vetch, an adventurous Scotchman, who, after some 
service in the British army, came first to New York, 
where he married into the Livingston family, and 
afterwards engaged in trade at Boston. In 1706, 
Vetch, with a number of other prominent Boston 
merchants, was convicted of trading with the enemy 
and fined, though the sentence was annulled by the 
crown on technical grounds. This incident does not 
appear to have affected his standing in England, and 
he had the advantage of considerable local knowledge 
of Canadian affairs gained during a recent visit. ^ 

^ Order in council of September 24, 1707, in Hutchinson, 
Hist, of Mass. Bay (ed. of 1795), 11., 144; Patterson, "Hon. 
Samuel Vetch," in Nova Scotia Hist. Soc, Collections, IV., 1-20. 


In March, 1709, a royal circular was issued to the 
northern governors announcing an expedition against 
the French in accordance with Vetch's proposals. 
A fleet was to be sent out from England with five 
regiments of British regulars, who were to be re- 
inforced by Massachusetts and Rhode Island militia, 
and then to proceed by sea against Quebec; Mon- 
treal was to be attacked by a land force from Albany, 
consisting of militia from New York, Connecticut, 
New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, and an auxiliary 
force of Indians. Vetch was given general super- 
vision of the enterprise, and the colonial govern- 
ments were required to furnish supplies and fixed 
quotas of militia/ 

The plan was received with enthusiasm in New 
England, where it seemed to offer a permanent solu- 
tion of the perplexing French and Indian problem. 
The necessary preparations were therefore pushed 
forward with vigor. ^ In the middle colonies the 
problem was less simple. For New York the new 
enterprise meant a departure from the quasi-neutral 
position which had hitherto saved the province from 
border warfare. Nevertheless, the expulsion of the 
French from Canada was a prize for which it was 
worth while to take some risks, so that the New 
York assembly contributed liberally in men and 
supplies; and, by the help of the Schuylers, some 

^N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., V., 70-74; Instructions to 
Vetch in Nova Scotia Hist. Soc, Collections, IV., 64-68. 
2 Parkman, Half -Century of Conflict, I., 131, 


of the Iroquois were induced to co-operate. In 
New Jersey and Pennsylvania the Quaker influ- 
ence proved a serious obstacle. New Jersey finally 
made an appropriation of £3000, but Pennsylvania 
refused to take any part in the enterprise. Never- 
theless, a strong force was collected and a com- 
mander chosen in the person of Francis Nicholson, 
who as governor or lieutenant-governor in New 
York, Virginia, and Maryland, had had an unusually 
varied experience. His military capacity was never 
severely tested, but he was zealous and energetic.^ 

After all these preparations the colonists were 
finally disappointed by the failure of the home 
government to do its part. The supposedly more 
urgent demands of the European war led to a change 
of plan, and the troops formerly intended for Que- 
bec were sent to Portugal. It was now proposed 
that with the help of English men-of-war then in 
American waters an attack should be made on 
Port Royal. The naval ofiicers, however, refused 
their co-operation, and the year of hard work and 
heavy outlay ended with no tangible result.^ 

Nevertheless, the leaders in America refused to 
give up the enterprise. Nicholson and Schuyler 
went to England to urge vigorous measures upon 
the government, and the latter took with him a 

^N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., V., 78-81; Penn-Logan Cor- 
respondence, II., 351. 

^ PaTkman, Half-Century of Conflict, I., 137-140; Hutchinson, 
Hist, of Mass. Bay (ed. of 1795), II., 160-163. 



party of Mohawk sachems who attracted much at- 
tention.* The more ambitious expedition to Canada 
was allowed to drop for the present, but one sub- 
stantial result of these appeals was the Port Royal 
expedition of 17 10, of which Nicholson himself 
was commander-in-chief, with Vetch as adjutant- 
general. Four regiments of militia were furnished 
by New England, and the English government con- 
tributed a few men-of-war with a regiment of marines. 
The French governor at Port Royal was too w^eak 
to resist so strong a force, and a week after the 
arrival of the fleet he was obliged to surrender. 
Acadia thereupon became the British province of 
Nova Scotia and Port Royal became Annapolis 

After the capture of Port Royal, Nicholson re- 
turned to England to urge once more the larger 
enterprise against Canada. Dining the simimer of 
17 10 the ministry of Godolphin and Marlborough, 
which, though not distinctly partisan, had finally 
allied itself closely with the Whigs, was overthrown 
and a new Tory ministry came into office, of which 
the leading members were Robert Harley, soon 
after created Earl of Oxford, and Henry St. John, 
who was also soon raised to the peerage as Viscount 
Bolingbroke. These men represented the reaction 

* Schuyler, Colonial New York, II., 32-39, 

'Nicholson, Journal, in Nova Scotia Hist. Soc, Collections, 
I., 59-104; Penhallow, Wars of New England, 57-62; N, Y. 
Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., IX., 853. 


against the continental war policy of their prede- 
cessors, and they soon set themselves to secure peace 
with France. On the other hand, the idea of the 
conquest of Canada appealed strongly to St. John, 
who wrote of the plan, "It is my favorite project, 
which I have been driving on ever since I came last 
into business, what will be an immense and lasting 
advantage to our country, if it succeeds, and what 
if it fails, will perhaps be particularly prejudicial to 
me." ' 

A new campaign was therefore planned. Again, 
as in 1709, it was proposed to undertake simul- 
taneous movements by sea from Boston against 
Quebec and by land from Albany against Montreal. 
The attack on Quebec was to be made by a British 
fleet carrying seven regiments of regular troops, 
and an additional force to be raised in New Eng- 
land. The land expedition was to consist of a few 
regulars, mihtia from Connecticut and the middle 
colonies, and Iroquois Indians, all tinder the com- 
mand of General Nicholson. 

The desire of the government to keep the ex- 
pedition as secret as possible left the colonists only 
a scant allowance of time to make their contribu- 
tions in men and supplies; but they seem, on the 
whole, to have given cordial and effective support. 

* Stanhope, England, I'/oi-iyij, pp. 424-427, 438-441, 469- 
473; St. John to Hunter, February 6, 17 11, quoted in Palfrey, 
New England, IV., 280; cf. BoUngbroke, Letters and Correspond- 
ence, I., 232, 252, 


A conference of governors was held at New London 
to discuss the necessary arrangements, and even 
Pennsylvania consented to make a contribution in 
money. ^ After some discussion the leading Quakers 
decided that they might "give the Queen money, 
notwithstanding any use she might put it to, that 
being not our part, but hers. " ^ In Boston there was 
some friction between the royal officers and the 
citizens, but the general court seems to have done 
all that could reasonably have been expected. In 
New York there was another diplomatic contest be- 
tween Peter Schuyler and the able French agent 
Joncaire, which resulted in securing the co-operation 
of eight hundred Iroquois for the attack on Mon- 
treal. ^ 

Once more the colonists were doomed to disap- 
pointment, and the responsibility for the failure 
must rest mainly with the British naval and mili- 
tary commanders. The admiral of the fleet, Sir 
Hovenden Walker seems to have been faint-hearted 
as well as incompetent. The commander of the 
military forces, the notorious ''Jack Hill," a brother 
of the queen's favorite, Mrs. Masham, had been 
rapidly promoted in the face of Marlborough's pro- 
tests and had never shown capacity for important 
military command.^ The fleet entered the St. 

^N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., V., 257-261. 

2 Penn- Logan Correspondence , II., 436. 

3 N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., V., 252. 

*Coxe, Marlborough, V., 127; Bolingbroke, Letters and Corre- 
spondence, I., 94, 


Lawrence in August, 171 1, but never reached Que- 
bec: through a serious blunder, for which Walker 
was at least partially responsible, several trans- 
ports were wrecked in the river with a loss of sev- 
eral hundred soldiers. There still remained a force 
decidedly superior to any that Vaudreuil could mus- 
ter at Quebec, but neither Walker nor Hill had 
any heart for the undertaking, and after taking the 
advice of a council of war they determined to re- 
treat. The failure of the Quebec movement re- 
quired the abandonment of the New York enter- 
prise also, greatly to the disgust of its commander. 

Few episodes in English colonial history are more 
humiliating than the failure of this Quebec ex- 
pedition ; and in New England, especially, there was 
sharp criticism of the management, "some imput- 
ing it to cowardice, but most to treachery." An 
attempt was also made to throw the blame upon 
the Massachusetts government and people for lack 
of proper support, but the charge was effectively 
answered by Dummer, the Massachusetts agent in 
London, in his Letter to a Noble Lord} 

Notwithstanding their disappointment, the colo- 
nists urged upon the home government a new 
attempt upon Canada, but the Tory ministers were 
deep in the negotiations for peace, and in 1712 
secured a general suspension of hostilities. After 
a long and exhausting war both parties were 

^ Penhallow, Wars of New England, 70-74; Dummer, Letter 
to a Noble Lord. 


ready for concessions, and in 17 13 they agreed to 
the peace of Utrecht. The Spanish succession was 
settled by a compromise which was reluctantly and 
after some delay accepted by the Austrians; the 
establishment of the Bourbon dynasty in Spain and 
its colonial dependencies was recognized, but the 
union of the French and Spanish crowns was care- 
fully guarded against. Nevertheless, the tendency 
of the two related houses to act together proved 
more than once an important factor in the sub- 
sequent history both of Europe and America.^ 

Of great significance for America are the provi- 
sions of the peace of Utrecht which mark the ad- 
vance of England as a maritime power. Her posi- 
tion in the Mediterranean was strengthened by the 
acquisition of Port Mahon, in Minorca, and the 
fortress of Gibraltar, captured in 1704. Her in- 
terest in the Spanish trade was recognized by the 
Asiento clause, w^hich gave to English merchants 
for thirty years the exclusive privilege of carrying 
on the African slave-trade with the Spanish-iVmeri- 
can colonies. In the West Indies the net result 
was comparatively small. St. Christopher became a 
wholly English possession, but the French retained 
their chief islands, which continued to be important 
stations for French privateers.^ 

* Palfrey, New England, IV., 285; Treaty with France, Art. 
vi., in Chalmers, Collections, I., 340-386. 

2 Treaty with Spain, Arts, x., xi, xii., ihid., II., 40-107; treaty 
with France, Art. xii., ihid., I., 340-386. 


The North American settlement brought serious 
disappointment to both parties. Louis XIV. *was 
reluctant to give up Acadia and offered instead 
various concessions elsewhere; but he was finally 
forced to yield, although an opening was left for 
future controversy by the statement that the prov- 
ince was ceded "with its ancient limits." With 
Acadia, England also established her claim to the 
Hudson Bay country and Newfoundland, though 
with certain reservations in the interests of the 
French fisheries. The old claim that the Iroquois 
were subjects of the king of England was now 
formally recognized by the French, though their 
efforts to bring the confederates under French in- 
fluence were by no means finally abandoned.^ 

For the New-Englanders the conquest of Canada 
had seemed one of the desirable and possible results 
of the war. Dummer, the Massachusetts agent, in 
his Letter to a Noble Lord, insisted that the English 
colonies could never be at ease while the French 
remained master of Canada. Writing in 17 12, after 
the failure of Walker's expedition, he urged that 
Canada as well as Acadia be retained. Doubtless 
a minister of the type of Pitt, supported by a gen- 
eral like Wolfe, would have anticipated by half a 
century the English conquest of Canada. A serious 
defect in the settlement from the English point of 
view was the retention of Cape Breton Island by 

^Treaty with France, Arts, x.-xv., in Chalmers, Collections, 
L, 340-386. 


the French. The English had proposed a joint 
occupation of the island, refusing to either party the 
right to fortify it ; but the French rejected this propo- 
sal, and in their hands Louisbourg became a formida- 
ble base for hostile operations against New England.^ 

The cessation of war between France and Eng- 
land enabled the New-Englanders to come to terms 
with the eastern Indians. In July, 17 13, Governor 
Dudley held a conference at Portsmouth with repre- 
sentatives of various tribes and a treaty of peace 
was agreed to. The Indians acknowledged the 
sovereignty of the queen, promised to respect the 
rights of the colonists to the territory occupied by 
them, and to seek redress for future wrongs by 
peaceful methods. In spite of this solemn treaty 
another border war broke out a few years later, but 
for the time being the return of peace encouraged 
the English to extend their settlements.^ 

The year of the general peace was marked also 
by the end of a serious Indian disturbance in North 
Carolina, the so-called Tuscarora war, which re- 
quired the co-operation of the neighboring colonies 
and for a time caused some uneasiness so far north 
as New York. The coming of a new Swiss colony 
into North Carolina had excited the jealousy of 
this strong tribe of Indians, and the murder of the 
provincial surveyor, John Lawson, was followed 

^ Bolingbroke, Letters and Correspondence, II., 286; Dummer, 
Letter to a Noble Lord; Kingsford, Canada, II., 481. 
2 Penhallow, Wars of New England, 77-84. 


by a general uprising in September, 171 1, when 
some two hundred frontier settlers were massacred. 
The governments of Virginia and South Carolina 
were asked for assistance, and South Carolina 
promptly sent Colonel Barnwell into the neighbor- 
ing colony. In midwinter of 1 7 1 2, Barnwell defeated 
the Tuscaroras in a severe engagement near the 
Neuse River and compelled them to make peace, 
but this treaty was soon broken and the war con- 
tinued. , In 1 7 13 another South Carolina force, 
under the command of Colonel James Moore, son 
of the man who had led the expedition against St. 
Augustine, captured the Indian fortress with some 
eight hundred prisoners. The Tuscaroras were now 
so demoralized that most of them abandoned the 
province altogether. * 

The Five Nations considered themselves bound 
by kinship to the Tuscaroras, and there was some 
anxiety in New York lest they might combine 
forces against the English, especially as the French 
were then suggesting to the Iroquois doubts as to 
the sincerity of English friendship. This danger 
was, however, averted. After their final defeat 
the Tuscaroras took refuge with the Five Nations, 
becoming the sixth tribe of the confederacy; and 
with some hesitation this arrangement was finally 
accepted by the English governor of New York.^ 

* A/". C. Col. Records, I., 810 et seq.; McCrady, South Carolina 
under Proprietary Government, 496-503, 525. 

2 Schuyler, Colonial New York, II., 50-53; N. Y. Docs. Rel. 
to Col. Hist., v., 343, 387. 


For North America as a whole the peace of 
Utrecht marks, as no previous treaty with France 
had done, a real advance in the prestige of England. 
It was true that the French raids had retarded the 
spread of English settlements and that much 
damage had been done to New England trade and 
fisheries. Yet these losses were soon repaired and 
the net result of French military and diplomatic 
effort was a serious though not a decisive defeat. 



"^HE long wars of William and Anne were sue- 

1 ceeded by a quarter - century of comparative 
peace. In spite of Jacobite conspiracies the Act 
of Settlement was carried out in 17 14, and the suc- 
cession of George I. marked the victory of parlia- 
mentary authority over the hereditary rights of the 
Stuart line. Essentially foreign in their education, 
tastes, and interests, the first two Georges depended 
for their administration of English affairs upon the 
Whig chiefs by whose support the dynasty had been 
established. Under these conditions the system of 
party and parliamentary administration was, in 
course of time, so strongly founded that it finally 
prevailed even against the aggressively personal 
policy of George III. 

The first years of the Whig domination were 
occupied with struggles for headship in the party; 
but they soon ended in the supremacy of Sir Robert 
Walpole, who became prime-minister in 17 21, and 
held the position until 1742. Though he was then 




forced to resign by a combination of Tories with 
dissatisfied Whigs, most of the ministers of the 
next two decades were men who had been trained 
in his school. Walpole was a strong though coarse- 
grained country gentleman and a liberal-minded 
statesman. He shared the prevaiHng low stand- 
ards of public and private morality, and his political 
power was maintained in part by various forms of 
parliamentary corruption. His primary policy was 
to establish securely under Whig auspices the new 
Protestant succession and to develop the commerce 
and manufactures of his coimtry. He sought to 
accomplish these ends by preserving peace abroad, 
by avoiding extreme measures of any kind which 
might provoke dangerous antagonism to the exist- 
ing government, and by some relaxation of com- 
mercial restrictions. 

Walpole 's part in the shaping of British colonial 
policy has never been thoroughly examined. He 
has been credited with liberal views and particular- 
ly with having opposed a proposal for taxing the 
colonies. During his administration, parliament en- 
acted some laws in the interest of colonial trade; 
but, on the other hand, one of the harshest legis- 
lative measures of the period, the Molasses Act of 
1733, which, if enforced, would have seriously in- 
jured the trade of the northern colonies, was strong- 
ly supported by his followers and seems to have 
been distinctly an administration measure. His in- 
fluence was apparently, in the main, the negative 


one of discouraging over - aggressive schemes of 
colonial control.^ 

The system of colonial administration remained 
essentially unchanged throughout the Walpole era, 
so that the direct charge of colonial interests was, 
as before, mainly in the hands of the secretary of 
state for the southern department and the Board of 
Trade. Until 1724 no one man held the secretary- 
ship long enough to exert much influence for good 
or ill upon colonial politics. In that year, however, 
the southern department was given to the Duke 
of Newcastle, who retained it during the remainder 
of Walpole 's ministry and for six years longer, in 
all a period of twenty-four years. 

Newcastle was conspicuous even among his con- 
temporaries for his activity in the lower forms of 
politics, particularly for his prostitution of the 
patronage to partisan ends. He was also notorious- 
ly inefficient. One of his contemporaries said of 
him that he did ''nothing in the same hurry and 
agitation as if he did everything." According to an- 
other hon-mot attributed to one of his colleagues, 
he was always losing " half an hour in the morning, 
which he is running after the rest of the day with- 
out being able to overtake it." He neglected the 
colonial correspondence, and his chief interest in 
American affairs, as in home politics, seemed to be 
the spoils of office. From a politician of this type 

' Annual Register, 1765, p. 25; Cohhett, Parliamentary History^ 
VI 11., passim; Coxe, Sir A'. Walpole, I., 163. 




no constructive policy could reasonably be ex- 

The personnel of the Board of Trade was hardly 
of a kind to supply the deficiencies of the secretary. 
In 1 7 14 the board was completely changed and a 
number of comparatively obscure men appointed. 
During the next thirty years about thirty men in 
all were appointed and the average tenure was 
fairly long ; four members held office for over twenty 
years. With one exception, none of the men who 
saw any considerable service in the board under 
Walpole could be rated as even a respectable poli- 
tician of the second class. That exception was 
Colonel Martin Bladen, a veteran of the War of the 
Spanish Succession, who entered Parliament as a 
Whig in 17 1 5, was appointed to the board in 171 7, 
and served continuously until his death in 1746. 
He was one of the most active and influential mem- 
bers of the board, and he also spoke frequently in 
the House of Commons, where he steadily sup- 
ported Walpole. He came to be regarded as an 
expert on commercial and colonial affairs, and as a 
member of the Board of Trade was said to have 
gone by the name of ''Trade" while his colleagues 
were called the ''Board." ^ 

According to Horace Walpole, the Board of Trade 

^Horace Walpole, Memoirs, I., 162-166, 396; Coxe, Sir R. 
Walpole, I., 192, 327-330; Mahon, England, lyij-iySj, II., 154. 

2iV. y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., III., xvi., xvii.; Did. of 
National Biography, art. Bladen. 

VOL. VI. — 13 


in his father's time had become almost a sine- 
cure"; but the colonial papers of the twenties and 
thirties indicate that the board held frequent meet- 
ings and transacted a considerable amount of busi- 
ness. In the course of a parliamentary debate. 
General Oglethorpe said of its members that they 
were *'as exact and diligent in all the matters which 
fall under their province as any board in England," 
and that it was *'one of the most useful boards we 
have." ' 

The board maintained a fairly regular correspond- 
ence with colonial governors, inquired into colonial 
conditions, and made some elaborate reports and 
recommendations, notably in 1721 and 1732. Though 
many of these recommendations were disregarded, 
others were accepted, and much of the colonial legis- 
lation of the period was in accordance with their 
advice. In their efforts to impose their policies 
upon the colonial assemblies, they were frequently 
defeated; but this was due, partly at least, to a 
division of authority which left them almost no 
power of final action. Ultimate decisions regard- 
ing appointments and other subjects were in the 
hands of the Privy Council, acting usually on the 
advice of its own "Committee for Plantation Af- 
fairs." An energetic secretary of state acting in 
full harmony with the members of the board would 
probably have moulded the colonial policy of the 

^Horace Walpole, Memoirs, I., 396; Cobbett, Parliamentary 
History, VIII., 921. 


ministry, but these conditions were never realized 
during the Newcastle regime. Generally speaking, 
the lack of co-operation between the ministry and 
the Board of Trade showed itself not in the adop- 
tion by the former of a positive programme at vari- 
ance with that of the board, but in failure to act 
upon its recommendations.^ 

Other administrative boards continued to take a 
considerable part in questions of colonial policy. 
Thus the admiralty was interested in fostering the 
production of naval stores in America, and one of 
its leading members. Sir Charles Wager, was re- 
garded as an expert in American affairs. Horace 
Walpole the elder, a brother of Sir Robert, and a 
diplomatist of some reputation, held the profitable 
office of auditor-general of the colonial revenues. 
He took part in the parliamentary proceedings of 
173 1- 1733 which ended in the passage of the Mo- 
lasses Act, and in 1735 he urged upon his brother a 
closer attention to colonial affairs.^ 

Horace Walpole particularly commended ''one 
Coram, the honestest, the most disinterested, and 
the most knowing person about the plantations I 
ever talked with.*' Coram, after many years resi- 
dence in Massachusetts, finally settled in London. 
Having a special interest in colonial trade and ship- 

*A^. y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., V., VI., passim; N. C. Col. 
Records, III., IV., passim; cf. Egerton, Short Hist, of Col. 
Policy, 140. 

2 Coxe, Sir R. Walpole, III., 243; Cobbett, Parliamentary 
History, VIII., 992-1002. 


ping, he advocated the bounty on naval stores in 
1704; but he also favored the policy of restricting 
colonial manufactures. He was one of the Georgia 
trustees, and was also interested in the settlement 
of Nova Scotia. Doubtless, Coram was only one 
among a number of more obscure personages who 
contributed each his small share to the shaping of 
British official opinion.^ 

A fair test of a colonial administration is its exer- 
cise of the appointing power. Newcastle kept the 
patronage largely in his own hands, and numerous 
letters among the colonial papers show that their 
writers looked to him as the dispenser of desirable 
offices. Even before his time the Board of Trade 
complained of not being consulted with regard to 
appointments. Sinecure positions continued to be 
a serious evil in colonial administration ; during the 
first half of the eighteenth century the important 
government of Virginia was generally held by a 
non-resident governor, while the actual work of 
administration was performed by a lieutenant-gov- 
ernor. The commercial conception of public patron- 
age may be illustrated by the case of Lord Delaware, 
who, having been appointed governor of New York 
in 1737, was asked three years later to resign in 
favor of Lieutenant-Governor Clarke, and was prom- 
ised one thousand guineas, to be paid when the new 
appointment had actually been made. A new gov- 

^ Diet, of National Biography, art. Coram; N. jf. Docs. Rel. to 
Col, Hist., v., 308-314. 



ernor was appointed, but Clarke's application was 

Not all appointments, however, were unfit. There 
were bad governors like Cosby in New York, but 
he was probably no worse than Lord Cornbury, his 
predecessor, in Queen Anne's reign. The New- 
castle regime must, on the other hand, be credited 
with such good appointments as those of Morris in 
New Jersey and Shirley in Massachusetts. Though 
disposed to stand for the royal prerogative, both 
these governors were men of public spirit. Nor 
was the home government wholly irresponsible in 
the making of removals. In Massachusetts, it 
showed its sensitiveness to local sentiment on the 
death of one governor who had made himself ob- 
noxious to the colonists, by appointing as his suc- 
cessor the agent who had been sent to act against 
him. Probably the home government was not 
always reasonably firm in its support of men whose 
unpopularity arose largely from their vigorous as- 
sertion of imperial authority. 

A governor once appointed was supposed to be 
controlled by his instructions. During the New- 
castle period there was no marked change in the 
general instructions issued to the governor on his 
appointment, though there were a few additions. 
Some governors were criticised for failing to make 
regular reports to the secretary of state and the 

* Chalmers, Revolt, II., 35; N. C. Col. Records, III., passim, 
esp. 80; N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col, Hist. VI., 163. 


Board of Trade; but in other instances a volumi- 
nous correspondence was kept up, enough to give the 
home government a lively picture of provincial con- 
ditions, especially on the political side, though the 
board seems not always to have had full confidence 
in the accuracy of the returns. The adverse criti- 
cism which the board passed upon colonial officials 
was sometimes reciprocated. In October, 1736, a 
North Carolina governor wrote that he had had no 
communication from the board since the previous 
December, and, with the exception of a short note 
then, nothing for over a year. A similar complaint 
was made by Governor Clinton, of New York, a few 
years later. ^ 

Even in this era of "salutary neglect," colonial 
legislation was scrutinized with some care, though 
there was no such wholesale disallowance of provin- 
cial statutes as had taken place during the reigns of 
William and Anne. This may have been due partly 
to lack of energy in the Board of Trade, but it is 
explained partly also by the fact that the assem- 
blies had adjusted themselves to a sort of modus 
Vivendi in which some demands of the crown were 
acquiesced in and others avoided by indirect meth- 
ods. Governors also were now more definitely in- 
structed with regard to legislation. In the new 
royal government of North Carolina, out of the first 
two hundred and seventy-one acts approved by the 

* A/". C. Col. Records, III., IV., passim, esp. IV., 173, 242; 
N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col.' Hist., V., VI., passim, esp. VI., 270. 


governors, only eight were disallowed by the crown, 
and even in Massachusetts the percentage of royal 
vetoes was small. In Massachusetts the charter 
provision that acts not disallowed within three 
years after presentation to the crown should re- 
main laws until repealed by the provincial assembly, 
was avoided by postponing presentation. It was 
a common practice of the Board of Trade to order 
colonial acts ''to lie by probationary," awaiting 
examination by legal coimsel or objections from any 
other quarter. Some acts which were not disallowed 
were adversely criticised by the board or its legal 
counsel, and sometimes the governor was cautioned 
against the passage of similar acts in the future.^ 

The colonies frequently gave offence by their 
tariff legislation. Discriminating duties were laid 
in favor of colonial shipping as against that of 
Great Britain, and duties on slaves and on goods 
imported from England were also frequently com- 
plained of. Governors were forbidden to pass acts 
of this kind without at least a clause suspending exe- 
cution until approved by the crown ; and several such 
acts were disallowed Again, the home government 
forbade the passage of private acts without the sus- 
pending clause, andf or several years the Massachusetts 
general court gave up such legislation altogether.^ 

* Raper, North Carolina, 45, 49, 56; Massachusetts Bay, Acts 
and Resolves, II., passim, esp. 31, 66, 790. 

^N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., V., 706; Massachusetts Bay, 
Acts and Resolves, II., 69, 128; N. C. Col. Records, III., 95; 
Chalmers, Revolt, II., 72-75. 


A striking instance of the use of a royal veto 
to check a strong popular demand was the dis- 
allowance of a New York act providing for tri- 
ennial assemblies. After two long assemblies, last- 
ing ten and nine years respectively, it was felt that 
more frequent elections were necessary to secure 
genuine representation. The movement was re- 
sisted by Governor Cosby, but in 1737 the trien- 
nial act was approved by his successor, Lieutenant- 
Governor Clarke. An elaborate argument was made 
in its favor, laying stress upon the practice of an- 
nual elections in New England and Pennsylvania; 
but the Board of Trade, accepting the advice of 
its special counsel, Mr. Fane, recommended the 
disallowance of the act and an order in council 
was issued accordingly.^ 

The home government could not always impose 
its wishes upon the colonial assemblies. Royal in- 
structions did not prevent temporary grants to gov- 
ernors or extravagant issues of paper money. As 
a solution of this problem, and also in order to con- 
trol the legislation of the chartered colonies which 
was not subject to veto, the House of Lords pro- 
posed that all colonial laws should be sent to the 
Board of Trade, and that except in case of urgency 
none should take effect until approved by the king 
in council. This drastic measure, however, was not 

^Doc. Hist, of N. Y., IV., 243 et seq. 
2 JalcoU Papers, I., 296-298. 



Generally speaking, the Whig ministries accepted 
the mercantilist colonial theories, and governors 
were carefully instructed to enforce the navigation 
acts. Colonial enterprises were jealously watched, 
and the board continued its efforts to check colonial 
manufactures by encouraging the production of 
naval stores. Most English statesmen regarded the 
southern colonies, and more particularly the sugar 
islands, as deserving special attention and favor, 
because their trade was more clearly advantageous 
to the mother-country. In case of conflict, the in- 
terests of the northern colonies were likely to be 
sacrificed to those of the West Indies. 

These views were embodied in a considerable 
nimiber of acts of Parliament dealing with Ameri- 
can affairs. The most vital phase of English for- 
eign relations was the antagonism with Spain, 
arising from the efforts of enterprising English mer- 
chants to secure for themselves more of the Span- 
ish-American trade than they could fairly claim 
under existing treaties. This subject was almost 
constantly discussed in Parliament, and a more ag- 
gressive policy was urged upon the ministry, until 
in 1739 it was reluctantly forced into war with 
Spain. These conditions, of course, made it easier 
for colonial officials to gain the attention of Parlia- 

^Mahon, England, I'/is-i'/Ss, I.-III., passim; Coxe, Sir R. 
Walpole, passim; Cobbett, Parliamentary History, VII., VIII., 


In 1 72 1 a recommendation of the Board of 
Trade in favor of encouraging the production of 
naval stores was indorsed in the king's speech to 
Parliament and a new bounty act was passed. 
Other acts of this year placed furs and copper on 
the list of enumerated articles, but, on the other 
hand, removed all export duties on British manu- 
factures, with a few exceptions. In 1727 Parliament 
established the right of the Pennsylvanians to im- 
port their salt directly from Europe, as the New-Eng- 
landers were already allowed to do, and a few years 
later the same privilege was secured to New York.* 

With the year 1730 begins a period of consid- 
erable parliamentary activity in colonial affairs. 
Readiness to stimulate desirable lines of trade was 
shown by allowing the planters, first of South Caro- 
lina and then of Georgia, to send their rice, one of 
the enumerated articles, directly to European coun- 
tries south of Cape Finisterre. A few years later a 
similar concession was made to the sugar planters 
of the West Indies. Generally speaking, however, 
the spirit of British legislation during the next two 
decades was restrictive. In 1732 Parliament pro- 
hibited the intercolonial trade in hats, and otherwise 
restricted their manufacture in America. A similar 
policy with regard to iron manufactures had already 
been urged, but it was not carried out until the 

^ N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., V., 628; Cobbett, Parliamen- 
tary History, VII., 913-916; 8 George I., chaps, xii., xv., xviii.; 
13 George I., chap, v.; 3 George II., chap. xii. 




act of 1750 prohibiting the manufacture of that 
metal beyond the stage of pig or bar iron. * 

The most important commercial regulation of 
this period was the Molasses Act, which, after two 
years of discussion in Parliament, became law in 
1733. Its chief importance consists not in its act- 
ual economic effects, but in the light which it 
throws on colonial policy, and in the constitutional 
questions which were raised while the bill was under 
discussion. This act, imposing prohibitory duties 
on molasses, sugar, and rum imported into the con- 
tinental colonies from the West Indian colonies of 
other powers than England, was intended to revive 
the declining trade of the British West Indian 
planters by compelling the continental colonies to 
buy of them instead of encouraging their French 
and Dutch competitors. Its enforcement would 
have crippled the commerce of the northern colo- 
nies, and its passage in the face of their protests 
shows clearly the relative importance of the West 
Indies from the official point of view. Sir John 
Barnard, one of Walpole's leading antagonists in the 
House of Commons, and General Oglethorpe, both 
argued ably but unsuccessfully against this sacrifice 
of continental interests to those of the islands.^ 

Three other acts may be mentioned as marking 

George II., chap, xxviii.; 8 George II., chap, xix.; 12 
George II., chap, xxx.; see below, chap. xvii. 

2 6 George II., chap, xiii.; Cobbett, Parliamentary History, 
VIII., 856-1200, passim., 1 261-1266; see Howard, Preliminaries 
of the Revolution {Am. Nation, VIII.), chap. vi. 


some real advance in imperial control. In 1732 
Parliament determined to intervene in the judicial 
administration of the colonies for the protection of 
British merchants who had complained of legal ob- 
stacles in the collection of debts due them in Ameri- 
ca. It was provided that debts due to residents in 
Great Britain or to the crown might be proved by 
testimony taken in England, and that colonial real 
estate should be " chargeable with all just debts " as 
real estates are by the law of England." In 1741 
the Land Bank of Massachusetts was summarily 
dealt with by applying to the colonies the pro- 
visions of a previous statute dealing with similar 
speculative companies. Finally, in 1751, Parlia- 
ment undertook to check the paper-money craze 
in New England by prohibiting the issue of legal- 
tender bills. The act which destroyed the Land 
Bank was retroactive and therefore peculiarly ar- 
bitrary. Mr. Andrew McF. Davis, the leading au- 
thority on this subject, has accepted as "probably 
true" the opinion of John Adams that this act was 
more influential than the Stamp Act in the devel- 
opment of opposition to the supremacy of Parlia- 
ment among the people of Massachusetts. Frank- 
lin also thought that the hostility of the home 
government to colonial currency experiments was 
a large factor in the growth of colonial discontent.* 

* 5 George II., chap. vii. ; 14 George II., chap, xxxvii. ; Davis, 
Currency and Banking in Mass. Bay, II., chaps, vii.-xii.; Frank- 
lin, Works (Bigelow's ed.) III., 418. 


Some of the more aggressive officials of the Geor- 
gian period continued to cherish projects of direct 
royal government in all of the colonies, and the 
imion of all under one general governor to whom 
the governors of particular colonies should be sub- 
ordinate. Little, however, was accomplished in the 
realization of these ideals. 

At the beginning of this period one backward 
step was taken. Maryland, which had been ad- 
ministered since 1692 by royal governors, was in 
1 715 re-established as a proprietary province. The 
Catholicism of the proprietor had been one of the 
reasons urged for the institution of royal govern- 
ment, and now the succession of a Protestant heir 
was considered to justify the restoration of full 
proprietary rights. The negotiations for the sur- 
render of Pennsylvania had also, as has already 
been observed, come to nothing. Thus the two 
proprietorships which had been most seriously 
threatened during the early years of William III. 
survived to the close of the colonial era.^ 

One decided advantage was gained, however, by 
the abolition of proprietary government in the 
Carolinas, largely on the initiative of the colonists 
themselves. Both of the Carolina governments had 
long been under fire for lax administration of the 
navigation laws and for various other irregularities. 
The intolerance of the high-church party, supported 

1 Steiner, in Am. Hist. Assoc., Annual Report, 1899, I., 231 
et seq. 


by the proprietors, helped to bring on a civil war in 
North Carolina, while in the southern province it 
provoked an appeal by the colonists to the crown. 
In the latter case the prestige of the proprietors 
was weakened by the queen's intervention on be- 
half of the colonists, and the annulling of the charter 
was seriously considered.^ 

The exposed position of these frontier colonies 
also showed the need of a stronger government. 
This need was illustrated by the struggles of South 
Carolina with the French and Spaniards, and of 
North Carolina with the Tuscarora Indians; and it 
was still further emphasized two years after the 
peace of Utrecht by the Yemassee war. The Yem- 
assee Indians, who were settled in the southern 
part of South Carolina, were led, partly by un- 
friendly treatment at the hands of English traders 
and partly by the instigation of the Spaniards, to 
take up arms against the province. The invasion 
was finally repelled by the colonists themselves, 
with some help from Virginia and North Carolina; 
but several hundred settlers were massacred, and 
the proprietors gave no substantial protection. 
Exasperated by the negligence of the proprietors, 
the colonists in 1 7 1 6 presented through their agent 
a memorial asking the intervention of the crown. 

Soon afterwards the proprietors gave great of- 
fence to the colonists by vetoing a number of popu- 
lar laws which had been enacted by the assembly. 
* See above, p. 60 




The most important was one changing the method 
of election for the members of the assembly, so 
that instead of being chosen altogether at Charles- 
ton they should be elected by the voters in the 
various districts of the province. This veto seemed 
to be intended to secure the continued domination 
of a little group of politicians in Charleston, and led 
finally to armed resistance. In 17 19 the colonists 
assembled in arms and called upon their governor, 
Robert Johnson, to renounce the proprietors and 
asstime the government in the name of the crown. 
This Johnson loyally refused to do. He was, there- 
fore, set aside and Moore elected governor in his 
place, with the understanding that he was to hold 
office for the king.^ 

The home government accepted the results of 
this revolution by appointing Francis Nicholson as 
the governor of South Carolina, and the attorney- 
general was ordered to proceed against the charter. 
No such legal steps were actually taken, however, 
and the royal government of South Carolina re- 
mained for ten years on a purely provisional basis. 
The proprietors tried at first to recover their con- 
trol of the government ; failing in this attempt, they 
began negotiations for the surrender of their pro- 
prietary rights as a whole. In 1729 these negotia- 
tions were consimimated by an act of Parliament, 
and royal governments were then permanently es- 

^ Proceedings of the People of South Carolina, in Carroll, Collec- 
tions, II., 141-192; N. C. Col. Records, IL, 224-234. 


tablished in both provinces. Three years after this 
event the crown granted a charter for the part of this 
territory lying between the Savannah and Altamaha 
rivers to the Georgia trustees. The government 
of the new province was delegated for twenty years 
to a private corporation, but it was then to revert 
to the crown. ^ 

From time to time the general plan of abolishing 
all the chartered governments was revived. In 
17 1 5 a bill for the "better regulation of Charter 
and Proprietary Governments" passed the first and 
second readings in the House of Commons; and in 
1 72 1 the Board of Trade urged that all proprietary 
governments be abolished. To meet attacks of 
this kind, Jeremiah Dummer, agent in England for 
the colony of Massachusetts, wrote his famous De- 
fence of the New England Charters, addressing it to 
Newcastle's immediate predecessor. Lord Carteret. 
He defended the colonists effectively against the 
common charges brought against them, such as 
lack of zeal in imperial defence, arbitrary govern- 
ment, violation of the navigation acts, and the en- 
actment of laws at variance with those of Great 
Britain. He asserted strongly the loyalty of the 
colonists to the mother-country, denied any ten- 
dency towards independence, and insisted that the 
prosperity of the mother -country was boimd up 
with that of the colonies.^ He held that the pros- 

* McCrady, South Carolina under Proprietary Government^ 
chaps, xxiii.-xxx. ; 2 George, II., chap, xxxiv. 



perity of the latter was founded on the liberal pro- 
visions of the early charters, which could not, 
therefore, be withdrawn without serious injury to im- 
perial interests. The power of Parliament to resume 
the charters was not denied ; but, he said, " the ques- 
tion here is not about power but right; and shall not 
the supreme legislature of all the nation do right f" 

During the next quarter-century schemes for the 
reorganization of the colonial governments were 
frequently proposed; in 1723 Rhode Island and 
Connecticut were asked to submit to union with 
the royal province of New Hampshire; and in 1744 
Governor Clinton of New York referred to a printed 
proposal which he had seen for a general governor 
over all the continental colonies.^ 

In the same letter Governor Clinton referred to 
a closely related proposal for colonial taxation. 
The possibility of taxation by Parliament for the 
support of colonial administration was discussed at 
intervals throughout the eighteenth century. In 
an essay submitted by Bladen to Lord Townshend 
in 1726, a stamp duty was suggested as a means by 
which Parliament might raise a revenue in the 
colonies, and this was the particular form of tax 
referred to by Clinton in 1744. Clinton declared 
the colonists were "quite strangers to any duty, 
but such as they raise themselves," and that the 

* Dummer, Defence of the New England Charters; Kellogg, Am. 
Colonial Charter, in Am. Hist. Assoc., Report, 1903, L, 308 et 
seq.; N. Y. Docs. Ret. to Col. Hist., V., 627, VI., 268. 

VOL. VI. — 14 


proposed tax might prove a dangerous consequence 
to His Majesty's interests." * 

The most important parliamentary discussion of 
taxation and representation took place in the de- 
bate on the Molasses Act in 1733, with special ref- 
erence to a Rhode Island petition against the bill. 
Sir William Yonge, in arguing against receiving the 
petition, objected to a clause declaring the bill " prej- 
udicial to their charter," *'as if this House had not 
a power to tax them, or to make any laws for the 
regulating of the affairs of their colony." Another 
speaker was sure that "they can have no such 
charter" which ** debars this House from taxing 
them as well as any other subject of this nation. ' ' Sir 
John Barnard, speaking for the petitioners, argued 
that the colonists had a special claim to be heard 
by petition, because "the people of every part of 
Great Britain have a representative in this House 
who is to take care of their particular interest, as 
well as of the general interest of the nation . . . but 
the people who are the petitioners . . . have no 
particular representatives in this House ; and, there- 
fore, they have no other way of applying or of 
offering their reasons to this, but in the way of 
being heard at the bar of the House by their agent 
here in England." As against this view of Bar- 
nard, however, another member, Mr. Conduit, set 
forth the orthodox theory of virtual representation, 

C. Col. Records, II., 635; Bassett, Writings of William 
Byrd, 365; Chalmers, Revolt, II., 138. 




that as the colonies were ''all a part of the people 
of Great Britain they are generally represented in 
this House as well as the rest of the people are." ^ 

In the Annual Register in 1765, for which Ed- 
mund Biirke was then writing, the statement is 
made that a scheme for taxing the colonies was 
proposed to Walpole and rejected by him, with the 
remark that he would leave that "to some of my 
successors who may have more courage than I 
have." In his opinion, the royal exchequer would 
gain more indirectly by the development of colonial 
commerce, which would be "taxing them more 
agreeably to their own constitution and to ours." ^ 

It has been customary to speak of this period of 
British colonial policy as one of "salutary neglect," 
but this, Hke some other attractive generalizations, 
cannot be accepted without many qualifications. 
Though the trade laws were less vigorously enforced 
than they were in later years, and though the pro- 
posal of taxation by Parliament was never carried 
out, the colonists were by no means left to them- 
selves. Popular legislation was repeatedly defeated 
by the royal veto, and Parliament exerted its au- 
thority over the colonies even in the face of strong 
resistance. Sometimes, as in the suppression of the 
Massachusetts Land Bank, these assertions of par- 
liamentary authority left a smouldering fire of dis- 
content to trouble the statesmen of a later time. 

^ Cobbett, Parliamentary History, VI XL, 1261-1266. 
2 Annual Register, 1765, p. 25. 


It is not easy to determine with precision what 
in this period were the theories and feelings of the 
colonists regarding the authority of the home gov- 
ernment. If the views of aggressive imperialists 
had been carried out, if Parliament had remodelled 
the colonial governments and levied a stamp tax, 
radical theories like those of Samuel Adams and 
Thomas Jefferson would probably have come earlier 
to light. There were, indeed, royal officials under 
George 11. , as under Queen Anne, who thought the 
colonial assemblies were moving clearly towards 
independence. Attorney -General Bradle}^ of New 
York set forth this theory at length in 1729, point- 
ing out the difficulty of suppressing a revolt if the 
colonists were once united; and Dummer thought 
it necessary to discuss the question in his Defence 
of the New England Charters. ^ 

Nevertheless, the colonists generally were loyal 
to the king and did not question the supremacy 
of Parliament. Dummer, in his argument against 
legislative resumption of the charters, insisted that 
the colonists were unreservedly loyal and would ac- 
cept a decision by Parliament as final, even if it 
abolished their chartered privileges. He admitted 
that "the legislative power is absolute and unac- 
countable, and King, Lords, and Commons m.ay 
do what they please." Doubtless, as Clinton in- 
timated, there was an underlying assumption that 

^N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., V., 901; cf. Anderson, Church 
of England in the Cols., III., 351. 


taxation by Parliament would be a violation of 
colonial rights, but the colonists had not yet been 
obHged to define with precision their theories of 
constitutional limitations. ^ 

* Dtimmer, Defence of the New England Charters; cf. Egerton, 
Short Hist, of Col. Policy, 143; Hutchinson, Hist, of Mass. Bay 
(ed. of 1795), II., 319. 


(17 14-1740) 

IN spite of the prevalence of similar political ideas 
among the colonies, there was much of mutual 
jealousy and antagonism due in part to boundary 
controversies. In 1702 none of the colonies had 
its boundaries accurately marked; and in every 
case except that of New Jersey the disputed lands 
were of considerable importance for the future 
development of the colony. Massachusetts had 
boundary disputes with Rhode Island and Con- 
necticut on the south, and New York on the west ; 
while she could not agree with New Hampshire 
either regarding the northern limits of the old Bay 
Colony or the western boundary of Maine. The 
disputes with New York and New Hampshire were 
important because of the large area involved ; and 
the comparatively small strips at issue with Rhode 
Island and Connecticut related to settled town- 
ships. Connecticut had also a dispute with Rhode 
Island on the east and an unsurveyed line on the 



west which was still to cause some trouble with 
New York.^ 

New York had a comparatively small controversy 
to adjust with New Jersey and a more important 
one with Pennsylvania as to the whole northern 
line of Penn's charter. The latter issue did not, 
however, become serious during the first half of 
the century because of the slow movement of set- 
tlers into that territory. On the south, Perm and 
his heirs had a much more difficult question to set- 
tle. The Baltimores continued to claim the ''lower 
counties" on the Delaware, and the southern line 
of Pennsylvania was still undetermined when in 
the second quarter of the eighteenth century immi- 
grants began to enter the disputed territory. Of all 
the boundary controversies of the period, this was 
the most persistent and acrimonious. In the south 
there were similar boundary disputes which em- 
bittered the relations of the two Carolinas with 
each other and those of North Carolina with Vir- 

Before the middle of the eighteenth century 
marked progress was made towards the settlement 
of these disputes. The interior lines of New Eng- 
land were substantially determined, though Mas- 
sachusetts and New York had not yet come to 
terms regarding the territory between the Hudson 
and the Connecticut. In 1750 the Pennsylvania- 

^ Palfrey, New England, IV., 356-364, 554-559, 586; N. Y. 
Docs. Rel, to Col. Hist., VI., 125, 143, 454, 510. 


Maryland controversy was passed upon by the 
lord chancellor in England, though there was still 
some wrangling about details. A few years earlier, 
the North Carolina lines were drawn for some dis- 
tance westward from the coast by agreement with 
her neighbors to the north and south. ^ 

Trade jealousies were another source of friction. 
Discriminating duties in favor of home shipping 
were common and sometimes provoked retaliation, 
as in 172 1, when New Hampshire retaliated against 
a Massachusetts law imposing double duties and 
light- house fees upon the inhabitants of the former 
province. There were similar incidents in the mid- 
dle and southern colonies, and a serious instance of 
hostile feeling awakened by commercial regulations 
occurred between Virginia and North Carolina. The 
latter colony, being poorly supplied with ports, was 
accustomed to ship tobacco through Virginia; but 
this practice was prohibited by the Virginia assem- 
bly in acts of 1725 and 1726, on the ground that 
North Carolina tobacco was of an inferior quality. 
North Carolina complained to the Board of Trade, 
which recommended the disallowance of both acts.^ 

There was also a considerable intercolonial rivalry 
in the Indian trade, notably between Virginia and 
South Carolina and between the latter colony and 

* Shepherd, Proprietary Government in Pa., chap, vii.; N. C. 
Col. Records, II., viii., 205, IV., viii. 

2 Weeden, Econ. and Soc. Hist, of New England, II., 593; Hill, 
" Colonial Tariffs," in Quarterly Journal of Economics, VII., 78; 
N. C. Col. Records, II., 683, III., 196, 210. 


Georgia. In both instances serious ill-feeling de- 

Some intercolonial disputes were settled by 
amicable agreement; but often the intervention of 
the home government was necessary, and the final 
award left bad feeling behind on the part of one or 
both the parties. The difficulty of maintaining 
cordial relations between neighboring colonies is 
well illustrated by the experience of two pairs of 
provinces united for a time by the assignment of a 
single governor to both governments. New Hamp- 
shire and Massachusetts were combined under one 
governor over forty years, until 1741; when, partly 
because of the bad feeling between the two provinces, 
generated by the boundary dispute, this personal 
union was abandoned and New Hampshire received 
a separate government. For over thirty years the 
crown commissioned the same person as governor 
of New York and New Jersey; but in this case, as 
in the other, the weaker colony felt that its interests 
were being sacrificed to those of the stronger, and 
the practice was given up in 1738. The southern 
colonies were no more friendly neighbors during 
much of this period. William Byrd, one of the 
Virginia commissioners in the boundary dispute, 
repeatedly expressed his contempt for the North 
Carolina people; and in 1730 the South Carolina 
agents in London characterized the same province 

* Smith, Sotith Carolina, 212 etseq.; N. C. Col. Records, II,, 
251 et seq. 


as the "receptacle of all the vagabouns & run- 
aways of the main land of America, for which rea- 
son and for their entertaining Pirates they are justly 
contemned by their neighbors." ^ 

Notwithstanding these unpleasant facts of inter- 
colonial jealousy and strife, the most significant 
thing in the life of the colonies is the growing simi- 
larity of their political usages and aspirations. 
Leaving the two elective governments out of ac- 
count, the fundamental fact of American politics in 
this as in the earlier period was the antagonism 
between the appointed governor and the elected 
assembly, between the organized colonists and the 
agent of external authority. The underlying con- 
stitutional issues remained essentially as they were 
at the close of the seventeenth century, but they 
sometimes presented themselves in different aspects ; 
and among the colonists themselves there appeared 
new lines of party cleavage. 

Numerous controversies arose regarding the com- 
position and organization of the assembly, in which 
the lower house sought to secure as much freedom 
as possible from executive control. Thus in North 
Carolina the lower house refused for many years to 
admit members elected from districts which had 
been created by the governor without the sanction 
of the assembly. Nevertheless, in this, as in a 
similar controversy in New Hampshire, the repre- 

» N. C. Col. Records, IL, 394-396; Bassett, Writings of William 
Byrd, passim. 


sentatives were finally beaten. The attempts to 
limit the governor's freedom in summoning and 
dissolving assemblies also continued. Acts pro- 
viding for triennial elections were passed during 
this period in South Carolina, New Hampshire, New 
Jersey, and New York ; but the New Jersey and New 
York acts were disallowed by the crown. The 
Board of Trade regarded such acts as interfering 
with the legitimate prerogatives of the crown, and 
the governor's point of view was probably stated 
accurately by Governor Montgomerie of New 
Jersey, when he said that his predecessors "could 
not have carried on the publick business so quietly 
and Successfully as they did, if they had been 
obliged to call a new Assembly every three years." * 
One of the most important questions of legis- 
lative privilege during this period was whether the 
house of representatives had the right to choose 
its own speaker independently of the governor. 
In most of the colonies, as in the mother-country, 
the presentation of the speaker to the governor was 
a mere formality; but in Massachusetts and New 
Hampshire the governors sometimes rejected candi- 
dates chosen by the house. The most important 
contest took place in Massachusetts in 1720, when 
Governor Shute vetoed the choice of the opposition 
leader as speaker of the house, on the ground that 
the charter gave him a negative upon all acts of 

*Raper, North Carolina, 89-92; Greene, Provincial Governor, 
147. 155-157. 


the general court. The home government finally 
issued, in 1725, an "explanatory charter" which 
decided the point in the governor's favor. ^ 

By the beginning of the Hanoverian period the 
practice of making temporary grants to the gov- 
ernors had been adopted by several of the colonies ; 
but the home government was by no means ready 
to yield. The ideal of the board was a salary fixed 
by the crown, and governors were instructed to in- 
sist upon permanent settlements. The most in- 
teresting contests of this period took place in Mas- 
sachusetts and New York. 

In Alassachusetts the crisis came during the ad- 
ministration of Governor Burnet in 1728. The 
governor argued strongly for a permanent civil list 
as necessary to his freedom of action in legislative 
matters. He supported this argument by referring 
to the practice of the mother-coimtry, and claimed 
also that temporary grants had been used to extort 
legislation in opposition to the governor's judg- 
ment. The position of the house was simimed up 
in a resolution declaring that, after a salary had 
once been settled, the governor with his uncertain 
tenure would have little interest in serving the wel- 
fare of the people. In this instance the governor 
held to his instructions and died at his post, re- 
fusing to the end the liberal grants which the as- 

* Hutchinson, Hist, of Mass. Bay, II., 211-214, 226, 241; 
Poore, Charters and Constitutions, I., 954; A^. H. Provincial 
Papers, IV., 485-488. 



sembly was willing to give if he would only con- 
sent to give up the principle of a permanent estab- 
lishxment. The Pri\y Council in 1729, after the 
Massachusetts agents had argued the assembly's 
case, commended Burnet and reiterated the demand 
for a permanent settlement of the governor's salary; 
but under Burnet's successors, Belcher and Shirley, 
the home government practically gave up the fight. 
A permanent settlement was still in-ged, but if that 
could not be had, temporary- grants might be ac- 

In New York the practice for several years after 
Queen Anne's War was to grant the salary Hst for 
periods of five or three years ; but the house finally 
resolved to grant revenue for one year only, and 
the home government was obliged to submit. At 
the beginning of the last French war the board 
practically acknowledged its defeat, as it had al- 
ready done in Massachusetts, by instructing the 
governor not to press the matter. The same issue 
arose in South Carolina during the first years of 
the royal government, and the outcome was the 

The result of these controversies was that in South 
Carolina as well as in New England and the mid- 
dle colonies the provincial assemblies had in their 
hands an elective offset to the administrative con- 
trol exercised by the home government. A con- 

^ Greene, PrD-vincial Gz-Jcr-nc-r , 16S-173; Smith. SouVii Caro- 
Kna, 75-77. 


temporary statement regarding the proprietary prov- 
ince of Pennsylvania may be taken as applicable 
to several of the royal governments: "Every pro- 
prietary Governor has two Masters: one who gives 
him his Commission and one who gives him his 
Pay." ' 

The powers thus gained, the assemblies were not 
slow to use for purposes which the royalists regarded 
as subversive of the constitution ; and in these radi- 
cal measures New England continued to exercise a 
strong influence, which was naturally felt most 
strongly in the neighboring provinces of New York 
and New Jersey, where it attracted the attention of 
the royal governors. Cosby, of New York, said in 
1732 that the ''example and spirit of the Boston 
people begins to spread amongst these colonys in a 
most prodigious maner"; and a few years later 
Governor Morris, of New Jersey, wrote of the fond- 
ness of his assembly for the example of "their 
neighbours in Pennsylvania & New England." It 
is noteworthy that the New York assembly, in de- 
fending the triennial act of 1737, urged that their 
people ought not to be deprived of a privilege en- 
joyed by their neighbors. Even in the Carolinas 
the prevalence of "commonwealth maxims" was 
attributed to New England influence.^ 

The most common encroachments of the provin- 

^ Historical Review of the Const, and Govt, of Pa. (1759), 72. 
2 Chalmers, Revolt, II., 99; Morris Papers, 162; N. J. Docs. 
Rel. to Col. Hist., V., 321; S. C. Hist. Soc, Collections, I., 283. 


cial assemblies were in the field of finance. In sev- 
eral colonies the assemblies attempted, with more 
or less success, either to authorize payments of 
money without the governor's warrant, required by 
his instructions; or to make the warrant a mere 
formality "by requiring a particular vote of the 
representatives in each instance. The assemblies 
also generally refused to allow the council to amend 
money bills, a policy which had appeared much 
earlier and was imsuccessfully resisted by the Board 
of Trade. In the first years of the royal govern- 
ment in South Carolina the issue was raised there. 
The governor's instructions explicitly gave the 
council equal rights with the house; but the as- 
sembly denied that the king could limit their privi- 
leges in this way, and insisted upon their right to 
all the privileges of the House of Commons. The 
dispute went on for over twenty years and the 
house finally carried its point. In 1740 the Board 
of Trade made a stand in favor of the New Jersey 
coimcil, but here again it was defeated. By the 
middle of the eighteenth century the exclusive con- 
trol in the lower house of money bills was almost 
everywhere established.^ 

Provincial treasurers were generally appointed by 
the assemblies during the quarter-century following 
the English revolution; but there was some con- 

^N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., VL, 614; Greene, Provincial 
Governor, 122, 180; Raper, North Carolina, 197; Smith, South 
Carolina, 289 et seq. 


troversy as to whether the appointment should be 
controlled by the lower house alone or whether it 
should follow the regular process of legislation by 
governor, council, and assembly. Usually the con- 
trol rested practically if not formally with the 
lower house. Sometimes, as in Virginia and North 
Carolina, the close relation between the House and 
the treasurer was shown by combining that office 
with the speakership in a way which suggests the 
position of the English chancellor of the exchequer 
in the House of Commons. 

Other executive officers were frequently appoint- 
ed by the assemblies during the eighteenth century. 
When, about the middle of the century, Governor 
Glen of South Carolina declared that the executive 
power was largely in the hands of commissioners 
appointed by the assembly, he made a statement 
which, with some allowance for exaggeration, might 
have been made with regard to several of the provin- 
cial governments. In 1 7 5 1 the Board of Trade made 
a long statement about New York, in which they 
rehearsed the "fatal measures, by which the legal 
prerogative of the Crown (which alone can keep 
this or any Province dependent on the Mother 
Country) has been reduced" and *'the most essen- 
cial powers of Goverm^ violently wrested out of 
the hands of the Governor." * 

While governor and assembly were thus strug- 

* Greene, Provincial Governor, 183-195; N. Y. Docs. Rel. to 
Col. Hist., VI., 614 et seq. 


gling for control of the provincial administration, 
other important issues were raised, involving the 
rights of individuals and the extent to which they 
shared in the legal privileges of English subjects. 
The general principle was stated during this period 
in two important legal opinions. The first, deliver- 
ed by Richard West, special counsel to the Board of 
Trade, in 1720, declared that the common law of Eng- 
land was the common law of the plantations. " Let 
an Englishman," he said, " go where he will, he carries 
as much of law and liberty with him as the nature of 
things will bear." The second opinion was deliv- 
ered by Attorney-General Yorke in 1729, and dealt 
with the more difficult question of the statute law, 
which had been for many years an important politi- 
cal issue in Maryland. With special reference to 
that colony, Yorke asserted that general statutes 
enacted by Parliament since the settlement of the 
province, and not expressly applied to that colony 
or to the colonies in general, were not applicable 
there, unless they had either been declared so by 
act of assembly or "received there by long uninter- 
rupted usage or practice," which might imply the 
tacit consent of the proprietor and the colonists. 

The Maryland assembly asserted, however, that 
general statutes passed by Parliament, and not spe- 
cifically restricted, were the common privilege of 
English subjects whether in England or America. 
The proprietor denied this proposition; and though 
the matter was frequently discussed and the as- 

VOL. VI. — IS 


sembly gained a partial victory, it was never pre- 
cisely settled.^ 

As a part of their inheritance in the common law, 
the American colonists enjoyed the familiar safe- 
guards of property and personal liberty, and were 
accustomed to trial by jury both in civil and crimi- 
nal cases. The habeas-corpus act of 1679 was not 
applicable to the colonies, and their acts extending 
its provisions to themselves were sometimes dis- 
allowed ; but the privilege of the writ was generally 
secured in practice under the common law. Cer- 
tain other personal rights now regarded as a matter 
of course were not then generally conceded. One 
of these was religious liberty ; for, notwithstanding 
the substantial progress of the previous century, 
Catholics and Jews were still deprived of equal 
rights, and many men were compelled to support 
religious establishments of which they disapproved. 
So also the right of free criticism of public men 
and measures was not enjoyed as of course by the 
American of the provincial era, but was the out- 
come of serious conflicts with arbitrary power. ^ 

Shortly before the revolution of 1688 a clause 
had been commonly inserted in the governor's in- 
structions providing that no book should be printed 
and no printing-press set up without the governor's 

* Chalmers, Opinions, 206; Mereness, Maryland, 257-278; 
see below, p. 221, 

2 Carpenter, "The Habeas Corpus" in Am. Hist. Review, 
VIII., 18-27. 


leave. This clause was retained during the reigns 
of William and Anne, and for a time in some of 
the colonies the censorship was actually enforced. 
In 1 72 1, Governor Shute of Massachusetts asked 
for penal legislation against the authors of sedi- 
tious papers, but the house of representatives re- 
fused, and resolved instead that to suffer no books 
to be printed without a license from the governor 
will be attended with innimierable inconveniences 
and danger." In the instructions to later gover- 
nors the censorship clause was omitted.^ 

Yet the withdrawal of the governor's censorship 
by no means perfectly secured the free expression of 
public opinion, which was still much restricted by 
prosecutions for criminal libel, in which the rights 
of defendants were not always thoroughly guarded. 
Representative assemblies also were at times guilty 
of arbitrary procedure in this respect.^ 

Fortunately for the American people, the prin- 
ciple of a free press found an able defender in 1735, 
when John Peter Zenger, publisher of the Weekly 
Journal in New York, was tried for publishing false 
and malicious libels against Governor Cosby. Cosby 
had removed the chief-justice, Lewis Morris, for 
deciding against him in a suit about his salary, and 
the libels consisted in sharp criticisms of the gover- 
nor's conduct in the columns of Zenger's Journal. 
The case was tried before the new chief -just ice, De 

» Greene, Provincial Governor, 127. 
2 Cf. above, p. 88. 


Lancey, who had a natural bias against the 
prisoner. According to De Lancey 's theor\' the 
jury had to decide only on the fact of publication, 
simply accepting the decision of the court as to 
the libellous character of the statements made. 
This would of course have secured Zenger's con- 

The defendant's friends had, however, secured 
the services of an able counsellor in the person of 
Andrew Hamilton, a well-known lawyer and poli- 
tician of Pennsylvania. Hamilton insisted that the 
jury must decide whether the publication was really 
a false and malicious libel, and argued strongly for 
public criticism as the only safeguard of free gov- 
ernment. By this appeal he won the jury, who 
acquitted Zenger and thus established a new bar- 
rier against arbitrary power. ^ 

These constitutional controversies between the 
colonists and their governors were complicated by 
other disputes, especially on economic issues. In 
the royal and proprietary governments the land 
question was in some form or other an almost con- 
stant source of friction, the governors finding it 
difficult to secure the proper collection of quit-rents. 
In the proprietary provinces the colonists struggled 
to secure public control of land administration. 

Paper-money issues constituted another prolific 
source of party conflicts in which the governors 
and the administration parties sometimes stood out 
^ Rutherfurd, John Peter Zenger. 


against the popular demand, but often yielded to the 
pressure of colonial opinion, especially when they 
needed financial support. Even in the elective gov- 
ernments this became a disturbing political issue. 
In 1 73 1, Governor Joseph Jenckes of Rhode Island 
carried his opposition to paper-money issues to the 
point of indorsing his dissent upon a bill which had 
been passed by both houses of the assembly. The 
charter, however, made no reference to an executive 
veto, and the legal advisers of the home govern- 
ment decided against the governor, holding that 
the assembly might make any law not actually in 
conflict with the laws of England. At the next 
election Jenckes lost his office.^ 

No definite and permanent organization of politi- 
cal parties can be traced in the provincial era, and 
the lines of party cleavage varied at different times 
and in different colonies. In Massachusetts there 
was a tendency to party division betw^een social 
classes, especially during the period in which cur- 
rency problems were under discussion. A radi- 
cal party, recruited largely from the farmers and 
small traders, was opposed by the conservative " men 
of estates and the principal merchants," who held 
out against the paper-money radicals and became 
later the basis of a distinctly royalist party. There 
was a similar division of parties in Rhode Island.^ 

^R. I. Col. Records, IV., 456-461. 

^ Hutchinson, Hist, of Mass. Bay, (ed.of 1795), II. , 188, 200, 
31 5» 3545 Bates, R. I. and the Formation of the Union, 36. 


In New York, party contests assumed a more dis- 
tinctly factional character. The suffrage was close- 
ly limited, and politics during the first half of the 
eighteenth century was largely a contest between 
a few influential families, such as the Livingstons 
and the De Lanceys, who built up their influence 
by means of marriage alliances and other social ties. 
This aristocratic type of family politics continued 
until after the War of Independence; but the con- 
stitutional controversies between the governor and 
the assembly were preparing the way for more clearly 
defined parties based on political principles rather 
than on personal allegiance.* 

In Pennsylvania the Quakers formed a compact 
political body which until the middle of the eigh- 
teenth century controlled the provincial assembly, 
with the help of the conservative Germans. By 
that time the Penn family had joined the estab- 
lished church and the Quakers w^ere usually in op- 
position. On the proprietary side there were usu- 
ally the Anglicans, a small but relatively influential 
party, and the Presbyterians. During the last 
French war this proprietary party favored vigorous 
measures of defence. The comparative conserva- 
tism of the dominant Quaker party may be illus- 
trated by the more moderate paper-money issues of 
Pennsylvania as compared with New England.^ 

Becker, " Nominations in Colonial New York," in Ant. Hist. 
Review, VI., 260-275. 

^ Sharpless, Quaker Experiment in Government, I,, chap, iv. 


In the tobacco colonies, especially in Maryland, 
the divergent interests of the large and small 
planters led to important political disputes as to 
the regulation of the tobacco trade. Gradually the 
poorer and less educated people began to find po- 
litical leaders in the la^^er class. In Virginia a 
prominent feature of politics during the first half 
of the eighteenth century was the great power ex- 
ercised by a small group of aristocratic families 
who were strongly represented in the council and 
were able to make quite uncomfortable any governor 
whose policy interfered with the interests of their 
class. In South Carolina there was a strong group 
of Charleston merchants which, until about 1760, 
formed the backbone of the government party, op- 
posing the paper-money legislation desired by the 
planters and taking a generally conservative posi- 
tion on public questions. It was largely this class 
which dominated the council, while the planters 
controlled the lower house.* 

* Mereness, Maryland, pt. i., chaps, iv., v.; Bassett, Writings 
of William Byrd, Introd.; Spotswood, Official Letters, passim; 
Smith, South Carolifia, 234, 330. 



(17 14-1740) 

HE politics of thirteen small communities united 

1 to each other only by their common dependence 
on the mother-country hardly offered an adequate 
field for the larger kind of statesmanship. The 
governor's position gave him, of course, a certain 
opportunity for leadership, but he was mainly con- 
fined within the limits of his particular province. 
Still more distinctly was this true of the popular 
leaders. Nevertheless, a few efficient governors 
showed in their restricted field some of the elements 
of true statesmanship ; and among the colonists 
there were some aggressive and intelligent cham- 
pions of the popular will. 

Probably none of the provincial governors had on 
the whole so interesting a personality or gave so 
much evidence of political foresight as Alexan- 
der Spotswood, who, with the title of lieutenant- 
governor, was the actual head of the Virginia ad- 
ministration from i7ioto 1722. Spotswood was a 
Scotchman by descent, but was born in Tangier, 
where his father was stationed as an army surgeon. 



Like several other royal governors of the time, he 
had had an important military experience, having 
held the rank of colonel imder Marlborough in the 
Blenheim campaign; yet when he began his career 
in Virginia he was not quite thirty-five. 

From the beginning of his service as governor. 
Spots wood showed remarkable energy, public spirit, 
and breadth of interest. He was an active patron 
of William and Mary College, concerned himself 
seriously with the supply of ministers for the Vir- 
ginia parishes, and corresponded with the bishop 
of London about the best method of improving the 
general position of the clergy. 

Spotswood was also deeply interested in the 
economic development of his province. Much of 
the credit for breaking up piracy belongs to him. 
He also saw the value of the iron-mines, and may 
be regarded as the founder of the iron industry in 
Virginia. In its interest he secured from the as- 
sembly liberal legislation for the encouragement 
of German settlers, and tried also to enlist the aid 
of the home government. His largeness of view 
was perhaps most clearly shown in the emphasis 
which he laid upon western exploration. He be- 
lieved that the French plan of connecting Canada 
with the Mississippi might be thwarted by pushing 
the English settlements westward along the line of 
the James River. A few months after his arrival 
he sent out an exploring company to the mountains, 
and in 17 16 he personally led an expedition over 


the Blue Ridge. Two years later he urged upon 
the English government the desirability of an es- 
tablishment on Lake Erie. 

With all his strong qualities Spotswood was un- 
fortunate in his relations with his associates in the 
provincial government. He found a local aristoc- 
racy strongly intrenched in the council and accus- 
tomed to political control. His plans for a reform 
of the land administration were contrary to their 
interests and prejudices, and he asserted his pre- 
rogative as governor in ways which seemed to en- 
croach upon their constitutional privileges. He 
also antagonized James Blair, the commissary of 
the bishop of London. These difficulties were par- 
tially overcome, but he was soon after removed 
from office. 

He then retired to his country place at Germanna, 
on the Rapidan, where he engaged, on a considerable 
scale, in the manufacture of iron. Here he was 
visited in later years by his former antagonist in 
the council, William Byrd, who wrote a charming 
account of the Spotswood establishment. His pub- 
lic career was not, however, completely closed. 
As governor he already had done what he could 
towards the development of the colonial postal 
system under the act of 17 10; and in 1730 he 
became deputy postmaster - general for America. 
Finally, on the outbreak of the Spanish war, he 
received the rank of major-general, and at the age 
of sixty-four was actively engaged in the work of 


gathering the colonial forces for an expedition 
against Carthagena, when his long and varied life 
was suddenly ended in 1740. His career, taken as 
a whole, is an admirable example of a royal official 
identifying himself with American life and sincerely 
devoted to the solution of its problems.^ 

Two years before Spotswood's retirement from 
the Virginia governorship, William Burnet began a 
short but eventful service in America as governor 
of New York. Burnet was not so strong nor so 
picturesque a personality as Spotswood; but the 
two men were alike in watchful care for English 
interests in the continental rivalry with France, in 
zealous assertion of their prerogatives against rival 
elements in the government, and in the unfortunate 
antagonisms w^hich marred their official service. 
William Burnet was a son of Bishop Gilbert Burnet, 
the famous coimsellor of William and Mary and a 
leading personage in church and state. The son had 
a university education at Cambridge, supplemented 
by study abroad, and during his residence in Amer- 
ica was recognized as a gentleman of refined and 
scholarly tastes. Before his appointment as governor 
he had been in the customs service and had suffered 
from some unfortunate speculations. In 1720 he 
succeeded Robert Hunter as governor of New York 
and held that office until 1728, when his difficulties 

^ Spotswood, Official Letters, passim, esp. I., Introd., 4-13, 18- 
42, 163 et seq., II., 70, 295 et seq., 305 et seq.; Bassett, Writings 
of William Byrd, Introd., 355 et seq. 


with the opposing faction became so serious that 
he was transferred to the government of Massa- 
chusetts, which he held until his death in the fol- 
lowing year. 

Burnet's American career is chiefly notable for 
two things : his far-sighted policy for the promotion 
of English influence in the region of the Great 
Lakes and among the western Indians; and his 
constitutional conflict with the Massachusetts as- 
sembly on the salary issue. Before coming to 
New York, Burnet had conferred with his prede- 
cessor. Hunter, and acquired some knowledge of 
American conditions. On his arrival he accepted 
as one of his expert advisers on provincial policy 
the famous Cadwallader Colden, best known for 
his History of the Five Indian Nations; and in ac- 
cordance with Colden 's views he adopted two im- 
portant measures of policy. One was the estab- 
lishment of a British trading -post and fort at 
Oswego on Lake Ontario. In 1726 he secured a 
small appropriation from the assembly for this pur- 
pose, but was obliged to supplement this amount 
by advances from his own purse, for which he was 
never fully repaid. Burnet hoped that this would 
prove the foundation of an important English trade 
with the western Indians, an expectation which 
seemed to be justified by the attitude of the French, 
who regarded the new post as a serious menace to 
their interests and demanded, though without suc- 
cess, that it should be given up. 


Burnet also sought to check the trade between 
Albany and Canada, on the ground that it supplied 
the French with European goods which they used 
in the Indian trade. Thus, Burnet argued, the 
merchants were playing directly into the hands of 
their French rivals. He secured the passage of 
several acts of assembly prohibiting or restricting 
this trade, but the opposition at Albany was so 
strong as to prevent strict enforcement; and sev- 
eral of these provincial measures were disallowed 
by the crown. 

The salary dispute in Massachusetts has already 
been considered.^ In this episode, as in his meas- 
ures relating to Oswego, Burnet showed remarkable 
steadiness in the face of opposition, and commend- 
able readiness to make financial sacrifices in sup- 
port of what seemed to him a sotmd public policy. 
It may, however, be open to question whether more 
tact and judgment in dealing with men might not 
have given him greater success in administration.^ 

Burnet's place in the governorship of Massa- 
chusetts and New Hampshire was taken by Jona- 
than Belcher, who served for about eleven years. 
Unlike Spotswood and Burnet, Belcher was a pro- 
vincial by birth and early training, coming from a 
mercantile family in Boston and graduating from 
Harvard College. He had, however, seen some- 

*See above, p. 196. 

2 N. Y. Docs. Rel. to CoL Hist., V., passim; Smith, New York 
(ed. of 1792), 167 et seq. 


thing of the outside world, not only in England but 
in continental Europe, and on his return he took an 
important place among the merchants and politi- 
cians of Boston. His correspondence shows the fre- 
quent use of religious phrases after the Puritan 
manner, with some suggestion of sanctimoniousness. 

For many years Belcher was known as a ''pre- 
rogative " man ; but during Burnet's controversy 
with the assembly on the salary question he identi- 
fied himself with the opposition, and was presently 
sent to England as provincial agent to secure a 
modification of the governor's instructions. The 
home government refused to yield; but soon after- 
wards Burnet died and Belcher was sent as his 
successor, apparently on the theory that he would 
be more successful in bringing the assembly to 

As governor, Belcher had the reputation of being 
showy in his manner of life, unusually masterful in 
his dealings with the council, and much inclined to 
use his power of appointment and removal for per- 
sonal and political purposes. Though at first popu- 
lar with both the previously existing parties, he 
drifted into controversies which aroused bitter an- 
tagonism. On the salary question his instructions 
were drastic enough; but, on the failure of all at- 
tempts at compromise, he finally secured the con- 
sent of the Board of Trade to the practical surrender 
which has already been recorded.* On some im- 
* See above, p. 197. 


portant issues, however, Belcher held his ground, 
and during his administration the house was obliged 
to give up the practice of issuing money from the 
treasury by simple resolutions. He also held out 
firmly against new issues of paper money in Mas- 

I Near the end of his term, Belcher earned his 
chief title to fame by his fight against the Land 
Bank party, which then controlled the house of 
representatives. All persons prominently identi- 
fied with the bank he marked out for political 
ostracism, rejecting, in 1740, the speaker chosen 
by the house, and thirteen councillors, besides re- 
moving a number of administrative officers. In 
the fight for sound money, Belcher had the sup- 
port of the mercantile interests; but by this time 
there was a formidable combination of dissatisfied 
elements. The assembly of New Hampshire was 
convinced that he had not dealt fairly with that 
province in its recent boundary controversy with 
Massachusetts, and charged him with having been 
influenced by a considerable grant of money made to 
him by the Massachusetts assembly while the con- 
troversy was pending. Various political devices 
were used against him; and in 174 1 he was removed 
in favor of William Shirley, who was to become so 
prominent a figure in the last two wars with the 
French. I 
Belcher's removal from his New England govern- 
ments did not close permanently his political career, 


for he was afterwards appointed governor of New 
Jersey, where he helped to found Princeton College. 
In New England he left an unfortunate impression 
of indirect dealing, insincerity, and self-seeking.* 

Sir William Keith, the proprietary governor of 
Pennsylvania (17 17-17 24), may be taken as a good 
example of the demagogue in the governor's of- 
fice. Keith was a Scotchman who had previously 
served as surveyor-general of customs for the king. 
Throughout his administration he was notorious- 
ly negligent in the observance of his instructions — 
a serious matter for the proprietors, under the Penn- 
sylvania constitution, which left legislation wholly in 
the hands of the governor and the representatives. 
Efforts were made to check him by stringent in- 
structions, requiring him to approve no bill without 
the consent of a majority of the council. Keith then 
appealed openly to the people against the proprie- 
tary instructions, but this was more than the pro- 
prietors would tolerate and he was soon removed. 

After his removal Keith entered the assembly 
and attempted the role of opposition leader, appar- 
ently with the purpose of breaking down the pro- 
prietary government. He subsequently returned to 
England, where he was consulted by the Board of 
Trade as an expert on colonial questions. Keith's 
lack of trustworthiness in private as well as public 

^Hutchinson, Hist, of Mass. Bay (ed. of 1795), II., 318, 323, 
329, 331 et seq.; Belcher Papers (Mass. Hist. Soc, Collections, 
v., VI.). 



relations has been recorded for all time by Frank- 
lin in his Autobiography ; but Franklin, from the 
point of view of a popular leader, thought that 
Keith had in the main given good service as gov- 
ernor, especially in the passage of desirable legis- 

The elective governors of Rhode Island and Con- 
necticut were officers of a w^holly different type ; for 
they were themselves of the people, chosen repre- 
sentatives of their neighbors. Their authority was 
closely limited by the charters, and in theory they 
were little more than the first among the coimcillors. 
Yet as spokesmen for the people in negotiations 
with the neighboring colonies and with the home 
government they had important parts to play. 

During the first half of the eighteenth century 
these little republics showed remarkable steadiness 
in their treatment of their political leaders. Gov- 
ernor Cranston, of Rhode Island, was elected year 
after year for twenty-eight years; and from 1707 to 
1 741 Connecticut had only two governors, both of 
whom died in office. One of these Connecticut 
governors was Joseph Talcott, whose tenure of 
office covered the seventeen years from 1724 to 
1 741; and his career is of interest not because it 
showed any remarkable statesmanship, but because 
it is that of a characteristic republican leader. 

^Shepherd, Proprietary Governntent in Pa., passim; Proud, 
Pennsylvania, II., 178 et seq.; Franklin, Works (Bigelow's ed.), 
I., 76, 83-87; N. J. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., V., 245. 

VOL. VI. — 16 


Talcott belonged to one of the old and prominent 
families of Connecticut, but he had little education 
of an academic kind. Before becoming governor, 
however, he served a varied apprenticeship in pub- 
lic employments; first, in the town of Hartford as 
selectman or townsman, then successively as repre- 
sentative in the assembly, assistant, and deputy- 
governor. Besides his legislative and executive re- 
sponsibilities he held various judicial positions ex- 
tending from that of justice of the peace to judge 
of the superior court. He performed his share of 
military service in defending the colony against the 
Indians, and was also active in the Hartford church. 
Talcott may therefore be regarded as a typical 
public servant. 

The period of his governorship brought many 
perplexing problems, some of which involved the 
essential principles of the Connecticut constitution. 
During the early years he was engaged in some- 
what vexatious correspondence with New York and 
Rhode Island regarding boundary disputes, but 
these were settled during his term of office. More 
serious and perplexing were his relations with the 
home government. In 1728 came the news that 
in the case of Winthrop vs. Lechmere, carried on ap- 
peal from the colonial courts, the Privy Council had 
declared invalid the Connecticut law distributing the 
property of intestates among the heirs. ^ The en- 
forcement of such a decision would have caused 
* Thayer, Cases in Constitutional Law, I., 34-40. 


great confusion in the colony, and during the re- 
mainder of his life a large part of Talcott's corre- 
spondence with the Connecticut agents was made 
up of argimients in favor of maintaining the long- 
established local usage. The final issue did not ap- 
pear until after Talcott's death, when the Privy 
Council by its decision in the new case of Clarke vs. 
Toucey, in 1745, practically abandoned the position 
taken in Winthrop vs. Lechmere. 

These negotiations were peculiarly difficult be- 
cause all communications with the English govern- 
ment served to direct attention to the somewhat 
exceptional and anomalous position of Connecticut 
under the charter. It was noted that her laws were 
not subject to disallowance like those of most colo- 
nies, and that there were not the necessary securi- 
ties for an exact enforcement of the navigation acts. 
From time to time there was talk of radical parlia- 
mentary action, and of a remodelling of the charter, 
which at the best would place Connecticut on a foot- 
ing somewhat like that of Massachusetts. In deal- 
ing with these threatening proposals, Talcott showed 
himself diplomatic as well as firm, making minor 
concessions when necessary, but holding fast in es- 
sentials and constantly defending his people from 
the charges of insubordination and disloyalty.* 

The constitutional controversies of the provincial 

* Talcott Papers (Conn. Hist. Soc, Collections, IV., V.), esp. I., 
chaps, xvii.-xxviii., 53, 64, 89, 114, 217-229,11., 75-97; cf. An- 
drews in Yale Review, III., 261-294. 


governments brought out a few men of real capacity 
for parliamentary leadership. In the south two 
such leaders may be mentioned, Charles Pinckney, 
of South Carolina, and Daniel Dulany the elder, of 
Maryland. Pinckney was a native South-Carolinian 
who had been educated in England. On his return 
he soon took a prominent place as a lawyer, and in 
1732 became attorney-general of the province. He 
held that position, however, only for a short time, 
and presently became a member of the " Commons 
House of Assembly," serving as speaker from 1736 
to 1740. Though a man of considerable wealth, he 
identified himself with the house in its struggle 
with the council for exclusive control of money 
bills. Before he became speaker he draughted some 
important resolutions on this subject which were 
adopted by the house and which claimed for the 
latter in this respect all the powers of the English 
Commons. The resolutions were strongly worded 
throughout and ended with this notable para- 
graph : 

" Resolved, That after the Estimate is closed and 
added to any Tax Bill, that no additions can or 
ought to be made thereto, by any other Estate or 
Power whatsoever, but by and in the Commons 
House of Assembly." 

Pinckney showed himself a man of unusually 
liberal views by claiming equal rights for Protestant 
dissenters and entering his protest on the journals 
against a bill to impose upon them as members of 




the assembly an objectionable form of oath. He 
belonged to the second generation of a strong South 
Carolina family, several of whom played important 
parts in the later struggle for independence and 

Dulany was active in the Maryland assembly at 
nearly the same time. Beginning his career in 
America as a poor Irish immigrant, he became a 
considerable landholder and founded an important 
Maryland family. Like Pinckney, he had a high 
reputation as a lawyer, being considered in his day 
the best lawyer in the province. 

The chief constitutional question with which 
Dulany concerned himself was that of the applica- 
bility of English statutes in Maryland. Dulany, 
though holding the office of attorney-general, was 
also a member of the lower house and accepted the 
popular theory that the colonists were entitled to 
all the benefits of English statutes. In 1724 he 
led the house in demanding that judges should 
swear to do justice " according to the laws, statutes, 
and reasonable customs of England and the acts 
of assembly and usage of this province of Mary- 

The proprietors stubbornly resisted this view, and 
prolonged parliamentary struggles ensued with a se- 
ries of able state papers from the lower house, usu- 
ally draughted by Dulany, who was chairman of the 

*McCrady, South Carolina under Royal Government, 173-175, 
279; Smith, South Carolina, 116, 296 et seq., 412, 415. 


committee on laws. He also wrote a pamphlet in de- 
fence of the assembly's position, entitled " The Right 
of the Inhabitants of Maryland to the Benefit of the 
English Laws," which doubtless helped to raise the 
public excitement to the point described by Gov- 
ernor Ogle in 173 1, when he wrote that the country 
was "as hot as possible about the English statutes 
and the judge's oath." The controversy ended in 
a compromise which, though not determining the 
question with precision, was nevertheless regarded as 
a victory for the lower house. Yet Dulany objected 
when Bishop Gibson's commissary undertook to 
apply the same principle to ecclesiastical law and 

Dulany subsequently became a councillor and 
one of the governor's supporters, though he showed 
his moderation by helping to bring about a reduc- 
tion of officers' fees. Like Pinckney, he had a dis- 
tinguished son, Daniel Dulany the younger, who 
took a prominent part on the colonial side in the 
great Stamp-Act debate of 1765.* 

Pinckney and Dulany, though parliamentary 
leaders of the popular party, allied themselves at 
one time or another with the administration and 
held important appointments. The middle colo- 
nies produced a similar personage in Lewis Morris, 

1 Mereness, Maryland, 114-116, 122, 180, 270, 275, 449; 
Sioussat, Economics and Politics in Maryland, and English 
Statutes in Maryland {Johns Hopkins University Studies, XXI., 
Nos. 6, 7, II, 12). 


of New York and New Jersey, a severe critic of 
arbitrary government during Governor Cosby's ad- 
ministration, but a man of aristocratic tempera- 
ment, who afterwards became a royal governor him- 
self and was involved in the usual constitutional 
controversies with his assembly. 

One of the most representative leaders of provin- 
cial democracy was Andrew Hamilton, of Pennsyl- 
vania, who is notable also because of the inter- 
colonial range of his influence. Hamilton's public 
career began in the Maryland assembly, and in 
1715a committee of which he was a member framed 
a code for that province which "remained the law, 
with little change," during the rest of the colonial 
era. Already, however, Hamilton had an impor- 
tant practice in Pennsylvania, and in 17 17 he be- 
came attorney-general of that province. A few 
years later he entered the assembly, was for several 
years its speaker, and in 1739 made a valedictory 
speech in which he congratulated the province on 
its comparatively democratic forms of government, 
with officers generally elected by the people or their 
representatives, and an assembly which sat upon 
its own adjournments " when we please and as long 
as we think necessary." 

The most memorable incident of his life took place 
in another province when, in the trial already men- 
tioned, he argued before Chief -Justice De Lancey, of 
New York, the case of John Peter Zenger. That 
speech is significant not merely as an incident in 


the history of the struggle for freedom of the press, 
but also as a recognition of political principles 
held in common by Americans of the provincial 

In Massachusetts the most important radical 
leaders of the early eighteenth century were the 
two Elisha Cookes, father and son, whose careers 
taken together cover about half a century of pro- 
vincial politics. The importance of the elder Cooke 
as an opposition leader has already been noted, and 
his son was equally conspicuous in the constitutional 
controversies of the early Georgian period. In 
17 18 the younger Cooke defended in the house of 
representatives the right of the colonists to cut 
pine-trees on their own estates, notwithstanding 
the prohibition of the royal surveyor of the woods. 
The house supported him, and in 1720 showed its 
defiant spirit by electing him as speaker. Governor 
Shute met the challenge by vetoing the election, and 
the quarrel which followed prevented the trans- 
action of business during that session. The next 
house chose another speaker; but Cooke retained 
his leadership, and the governor, though afterwards 
sustained in principle by the explanatory charter of 
1725, was forced to leave the province. 

During Burnet's administration Cooke pursued 
his father's policy of insisting upon temporary 
grants ; and though under Belcher, to whom he was 

^Steiner, in Am. Hist. Assoc., Annual Report, 1899, pp. 251, 
260; Proud, Pennsylvania, II., 217. 


more friendly, he was willing to make some con- 
cessions, he refused to yield the essential principle 
at issue. The historian Hutchinson, who was just 
beginning his public career as Cooke's drew to a 
close, said that he had "the character of a fair 
and open enemy," and remarked on his unusual 
success during the earlier part of his career in 
"keeping the people steady in applause of his 
measures." * 

During the second quarter of the eighteenth cen- 
tury a few men were rising into prominence who 
were to play still larger parts in the revolutionary 
era. In Massachusetts, Thomas Hutchinson, as a 
representative from Boston in the general court, 
was already a leader in the fight for sound money 
against the Land Bank and paper-money faction, 
and was urging, without effect at first, but with 
final success, the redemption of the currency in 
specie. Then, as in later years, he showed his 
readiness to resist a strong popular movement 
which seemed to him mistaken. ^ 

Franklin also had begun his long and varied 
career of public service. Bom in Boston, he had 
while still a boy assisted his brother in publishing 
the New England Courant, and thus seen something 
of party politics in Massachusetts. His stay in 
England from 1724 to 1726 gave him a broader 

* Hutchinson, Hist, of Mass. Bay, II., 200, 211, 293, 335, 351. 
' Davis, Currency and Banking in Mass. Bay, II., 168-189; 
Hutchinson, Hist, of Mass. Bay, II., 352 et seq. 


knowledge of the world than most of his contem- 
poraries, and before he was twenty he had made the 
acquaintance of some of the most prominent men 
of his time both in England and America. In 1729, 
at the age of twenty-three, he took charge of the 
Pennsylvania Gazette, which soon became the prin- 
cipal paper of the province; and three years later 
came the first issue of Poor Richard's Almanac, 
During these early years he showed that combina- 
tion of business shrewdness with public spirit which 
was to distinguish him through life. Before 1740 
he had been appointed postmaster at Philadelphia, 
and had set on foot a number of important public 
enterprises in the city, including its fire company 
and its public library. 

From the beginning he took a keen interest in 
provincial politics. In support of the paper-money 
policy he published in 1729 his Modest Inquiry into 
the Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency, which, 
though not in accord with modern economic views, 
was above the average level of contemporary pub- 
lications on that subject. In 1736 he began his 
long service as clerk of the assembly, and soon be- 
came a recognized leader of the popular party. In 
1748 one of the proprietors characterized his ''doc- 
trine that obedience to governors is no more due 
than protection to the people" as ''not fit to be in 
the heads of the unthinking multitude," adding, 
" He is a dangerous man, and I should be glad if he 
inhabited another country, as I believe him of a 


very uneasy spirit. However, as he is a sort of 
tribune of the people, he must be treated with re- 
gard." ' 

* Franklin, Works (Bigelow's ed.), L, passim, esp. 53-57, 146- 
149, 153, 167-205; Penn, Letter-Book, quoted in Shepherd, Pro- 
prietary Government in Pa., 222. 



DURING the fifty years after Penn began his 
colony only two new English provinces were 
permanently organized in North America; these 
were Nova Scotia, conquered from the French in 
1 7 10, and Georgia, which was carved out of South 
Carolina in 1732. Placed on the northern and 
southern frontiers of the British dominions, these 
two colonies had a considerable political importance ; 
but in point of population both remained insignifi- 
cant throughout the provincial era. The story of 
colonial expansion during this period is, therefore, 
chiefly concerned with the development of the older 

Between 1690 and 1740 the population of the 
continental colonies increased from something over 
two hundred thousand to about one million. There 
was substantial growth in every colony, but the 
most decided increase came in the middle group. 
By about the middle of the eighteenth century 
Pennsylvania outstripped all the older colonies ex- 





cept Virginia and Massachusetts, and in white popu- 
lation she was nearly equal to Virginia.^ 

The important natural increase of population was 
reinforced in most colonies by a large immigration, 
partly from England but more largely from Scot- 
land, Ireland, and the continent of Europe. Com- 
paratively few of these non-English settlers came 
to New England, though there were some French 
Huguenots and Scotch-Irish. With something of 
the old exclusive spirit, the later Puritans scruti- 
nized jealously immigrants of alien faith and race, 
and thus, to the close of the colonial era, New 
England remained distinctly Puritan and English.^ 

In New York the conditions seemed more favor- 
able for growth by immigration. Its population 
at the beginning of the eighteenth century was 
more distinctly cosmopolitan than that of any 
other colony. The majority of its people were of 
Dutch descent, though in New York City the 
Dutch language and the Dutch church lost groimd 
during the next half -century, and the young peo- 
ple came to " speak principally English and go only 
to the English church." In other counties, like 
Albany, the Dutch language predominated, and it 
was difficult to find men sufficiently acquainted 
with English to serve as jurors. A community so 
varied in its racial and religious elements was ap- 

* Dexter, Estimates of Population in the American Colonies. 
2 Belloiap, New Hampshire, II., 30, 71; Proper, Colonial Im- 
migration Laws, 22-34. 


parently well adapted to attract the foreigrx immi- 

This opportunity was lost, however, largely be- 
cause of the mistaken policy of the provincial au- 
thorities. The land legislation of New York was 
less liberal than that of other colonies, particu- 
larly Pennsylvania. The unfortunate experience of 
some Palatinate Germans who settled in New York 
during Queen Anne's reign discouraged others of 
that nationality from coming to New York, and 
placed the province at a serious disadvantage in 
the competition with her neighbors to the south. ^ 

During the eighteenth century Pennsylvania was 
especially attractive to non-English immigrants from 
Europe. She offered land and citizenship on easy 
terms, and she adhered more consistently than any 
other colony to the principles of religious freedom. 
The result was a volume of immigration which pro- 
foundly influenced the subsequent history of the 
colony and the state. 

The first to come in considerable numbers were 
the Germans. Some of this nationality were among 
the earliest settlers of Pennsylvania, but their 
numbers were then comparatively small. The Ger- 
mans first became important during the second dec- 
ade of the eighteenth century, partly because of 
peculiar conditions in the mother-country, partly 

* Kalm, Travels, in Pinkerton, Voyages, XIII., 463, 586; 
Valentine, Hist, of City of New York, 299. 
2 Proper, Colonial Immigration Laws, 38-44. 

BORHAr i CO.jN.Y,, 




through the action of the British government, and 
partly because of the liberal policy of the proprietary 

The treaties of Westphalia in 1648 failed to se- 
cure either the domestic or the international peace 
of the disintegrating German empire, and thousands 
of people belonging to various Protestant sects were 
led to seek refuge from persecution under a foreign 
flag. The great international wars of Louis XIV. 's 
reign also left their mark upon the unfortunate bor- 
der regions of western Germany, especially in the 
Palatinate, which suffered severely from the French 

To these persecuted Protestants the government 
of Queen Anne and her successors offered protection 
and religious freedom under the English flag, and 
the result was an immense immigration to England 
and her colonies. For their benefit Parliament 
enacted its first general naturalization law, which, 
though repealed three years later, gave to large 
numbers of them the rights of English subjects. 
A few Palatines were sent to Ireland, but the great 
majority found their way to America. In 1709 
the Board of Trade sent a considerable colony of 
them to New York, where they were expected to 
devote their energies largely to the production of 
naval stores. They were dissatisfied, however, 
with the plans made for them, and after some 
serious disagreements with the provincial govern- 
ment, a considerable number of them left New 


York for Pennsylvania. Others came directly from 
Europe, and about the same time a considerable 
body of Swiss Mennonites came into the colony,^ 

About 1727 the German and Swiss immigration 
began to assume large proportions, sometimes 
amounting to several thousand new arrivals in a 
single year. These immigrants included adherents 
of various Protestant sects : the Lutherans, the Ger- 
man Reformed, the Mennonites, the Dunkards, and 
finally the Moravians, perhaps the most attractive 
representatives of eighteenth-century Pietism. 

This strong infusion of alien influences was looked 
upon with some misgiving, and Penn's secretary, 
Logan, suggested the danger of the province being 
transformed into a German colony. It was pointed 
out that the new-comers frequently squatted on 
their lands without making regular purchases from 
the proprietary agents, and that ''being ignorant 
of our language and laws, and settling in a body 
together," they formed "a distinct people from his 
i\Iajesty's subjects." A German newspaper was 
founded at Germantown as early as 1739, and in 
1743 another was issued in Philadelphia. In time 
the Germans became an important factor in colo- 
nial politics, uniting with the Quakers to form a 
conservative peace party in opposition to those 

* Proper, Colonial Immigration Laws, 14, 40; Carpenter, in 

Am. Hist. Review, IX., 293; Kuhns, German and Swiss Scttlc- 
tncnts of Colonial Pennsylvania, chaps, i.-iii.; A^. Y. Docs. Rcl. 
to Col. Hist., v., passim. 



who were trying to establish an efficient military 

Some efforts were made to check the tide of im- 
migration, or at least to regulate it. In 1727 the 
Pennsylvania council ordered masters of vessels to 
furnish lists of their passengers, and immigrants 
were required to declare their allegiance to the king 
and the proprietor. In 1729 a duty was imposed 
on the importation of foreigners and Irish servants. 
The act was repealed almost immediately, but the 
feeling which prompted the measure evidently per- 
sisted. The proprietary governors, however, usually 
desired to encourage immigration, and in 1755 a bill 
restricting it was defeated by the governor's veto.* 

More aggressive politically than the Germans 
were the Scotch-Irish Presbyterians. This immi- 
gration first assumed importance a few years after 
the close of Queen Anne's War, but it developed 
rapidly during the next two decades. The Scotch- 
Irish, like the Germans, were not regarded with un- 
mixed satisfaction. During the early years they 
received liberal terms and were encouraged to form 
barrier settlements on the frontier. Logan found 
them as little disposed to pay for their land as some 
of the Germans had been; they were quoted as 
arguing that it was " against the laws of God and 

'Shepherd, Proprietary Government in Pa., 545; Watson, 
Annals of Philadelphia (ed. of 1857), II., 254-259, 398; Proper, 
Colonial Immigration Laws, 46-54; [Burke], European Settle- 
ments, II., 201. 

VOL. VI. — 17 


nature that so much land should be idle while so 
many Christians wanted it to labour on, and to raise 
their bread." They were also criticised for their 
tendency to embroil themselves with the Indians, 
and this aggressive and warlike spirit made them 
particularly objectionable to the Quakers, who tried 
to restrict their political influence by refusing them 
proportionate representation in the assembly.* 

Many Germans and Scotch-Irish also found their 
way into New Jersey. One important German set- 
tlement in that colony was that of New Brunswick, 
which by 1750 had two German churches. The 
strength of the Scotch-Irish element in that colony 
may be seen in the rapid extension of the Presby- 
terian church.^ 

This immigration impressed more strongly than 
ever upon the middle colonies that complexity in 
race and religion which had been characteristic of 
them from the first. Nowhere did this complexity 
find clearer expression than in the colonial churches. 
In New York City in the middle of the eighteenth 
century there were English, Dutch, French, Ger- 
man, and Jewish places of worship, besides a Pres- 
byterian church which was affiliated with the es- 
tablished church of Scotland. Of twelve churches 
in Philadelphia, noted by Kalm during his stay 
there in 1749, at least seven represented non-Eng- 

* Logan MSS., quoted in Watson, Annals of Philadelphia, II., 
259; Shepherd, Proprietary Government in Pa., 546. 
2 Kalm, in Pinkerton, Voyages, XIII., 448-450. 



lish elements in the life of the colony, including 
Swedish and German Lutherans, German Calvinists, 
a Moravian church where services were conducted 
both in English and German, and the "great house" 
of the Roman Catholics. Outside of Philadelphia 
there were several German communities, made up 
almost if not quite exclusively of members of a single 
religious body, as in the case of the German Baptists 
at Ephrata and the Moravians at Bethlehem.^ 

During the eighteenth century, the southern colo- 
nies also sought to encourage immigration, some- 
times making religious concessions for this purpose. 
The French Huguenot immigration, which began 
some years before the revolution of 1689, continued 
for several years afterwards, and in Virginia and 
South Carolina these settlers were numerous enough 
to form several churches. In spite of their Calvin- 
istic traditions they maintained, as a rule, friendly 
relations with the established Anglican church, and 
often united with it. Other Protestant settlers in 
South Carolina were not so friendly to these refugees, 
but the early antagonism gradually passed away.^ 

Aside from the French Huguenots, the non- 
English immigration into the south was compara- 
tively unimportant until the second quarter of the 
eighteenth century. Then the Scotch-Irish and the 

* Kalm, in Pinkerton, Voyages, XIII., 388, 457, 584; cf. Sachse, 
German Sectarians of Pennsylvania, passim. 

^ Cat. of State Pap., Col., 1693-1696, p. 85; McCrady, South 
Carolina under Proprietary Government, 180, 181, 233, 239, 304, 
319. 323» 339. 374. 39^> 


Germans began to appear in force in the up-country 
of Virginia and especially in the Great Valley. In 
order to develop these settlements on the frontier, 
the royal government was willing to concede relig- 
ious toleration. Under the leadership of their pioneer 
ministers, the Great Valley became, as it is to-day, a 
stronghold of Scotch-Irish Presbyterians, standing out 
in marked contrast, sometimes in sharp antagonism, 
with the Anglican influence of the ti de -water. ^ 

In South Carolina the overthrow of the pro- 
prietary government was followed by vigorous ef- 
forts to stimulate immigration. A favorite plan at 
this period was that of laying out new townships 
and offering them to communities or groups of set- 
tlers. In this way the Scotch-Irish settlement of 
Williamsburg was formed, with a special guarantee 
of freedom of worship. Other similar communities 
were founded by Swiss, German, and Welsh settlers. 
Here, as in Pennsylvania, the new-comers tended 
to form on the frontiers communities with sym- 
pathies and interests quite different from those of 
the seaboard. It was not, however, until the period 
of the last French war that the great Scotch- Irish 
immigration into the Carolinas took place ; and not 
until then did the mutual jealousy and antago- 
nism of tide-water and back-country become a really 
important factor in their provincial politics.^ 

A large proportion of the early American immi- 

^ Mcllwaine, in Johns Hopkins University Studies, XII., No. iv. 
^ McCrady, South Carolina under Royal Government, chap. viii. 


grants belonged to the servant class. The best of 
them were the " redemptioners, " who sold their ser- 
vices for fixed terms of years in return for their 
passage money. Both in Pennsylvania and Mary- 
land these white servants formed an important part 
of the industrial system ; and many of them became, 
after their term of service, prosperous land-owners 
and useful citizens. 

A much less desirable kind of servants were the 
convicts. Under a parliamentary statute of 1717 
certain classes of criminals might at the discretion of 
the court be transported to the colonies for a term 
of not less than seven years. ^ It has been estimated 
that some fifty thousand convicts were shipped 
from Great Britain and Ireland during the remain- 
der of the colonial period. Maryland has the dis- 
tinction of receiving more of them than any other 
single colony, and the convicts there formed the 
larger portion of the servant class. Several of the 
colonies attempted to check this introduction of 
servants, especially that of the Irish Catholics and 
the convicts. Such restrictive measures were, how- 
ever, discouraged by the home government and fre- 
quently disallowed.^ 

No other form of immigration during this period 
had so serious a meaning for the future of the 

* 4 George I., chap. xi. 

^ Kalm, in Pinkerton, Travels, XIII., 500; Geiser, Redemp- 
tioners and Indented Servants in Pennsylvania ; McCormac, White 
Servitude in Maryland {Johns Hopkins University Studies, XXII., 
Nos. iii., iv.). 


American people as that of the negro slaves. At 
the close of the seventeenth century the slaves 
constituted only a small minority of the popula- 
tion in all of the colonies except South Carolina. 
During the next fifty years this condition was radi- 
cally changed through the development of the 
African slave-trade. The Royal African Company, 
which was chartered in 1672, carried on an in- 
creasing trade with monopoly privileges until, in 
1698, Parliament admitted private merchants to a 
share in it. In 17 13 the Asiento contract with 
Spain gave England a larger interest in this branch 
of commerce, which had the special favor of the 
crown. Between 1698 and 1707 some twenty -five 
thousand slaves were probably brought annually 
from Africa to America, and the number was in- 
creased after the Asiento privilege had been se- 
cured. The proportion which went to the con- 
tinental colonies also increased. By the middle of 
the eighteenth century, there were about three 
hundred thousand slaves in British North Amer- 
ica, so that they had increased at least twice as 
rapidly as the white population.* 

This negro population was very unequally distrib- 
uted. On the western shore of Narragansett Bay 
there was a small slave-holding aristocracy which 
had an important influence in the social and political 
life of Rhode Island ; but in New England, general- 
ly, the negro population was insignificant. Of the 
^ Du Bois, Suppression of the Slave-Trade, chap. i. 



middle colonies, New York had the largest propor- 
tion of slaves, from one-sixth to one-seventh of the 
total population. There was even then a decided 
transition in this respect on passing southward 
from Pennsylvania into Maryland, where perhaps 
one -fourth of the people were slaves. In Vir- 
ginia the proportion was probably about two-fifths, 
and in some Virginia counties, as well as in South 
Carolina, the negroes outnumbered the whites.* 

As the slaves increased, their legal status was 
more carefully defined by legislation, and they were 
more sharply differentiated from the white servants. 
Stringent laws were enacted to prevent the inter- 
mixture of the races ; and a Virginia statute classed 
negroes, for certain purposes, as real estate. The 
power of the master over his slave, though not 
absolute, was very great, especially in the south; 
in Virginia, for instance, manslaughter, as dis- 
tinguished from wilful murder, was not punishable 
if committed by a master upon his slave. The testi- 
mony of a negro could not be accepted as evidence 
except against those of his own race, and special 
courts were provided for the trial of his more serious 
offences, "without the solemnitie of a jury."^ 

^ Du Bois, Suppression of the Slave-Trade, chaps, ii.-iv., esp. 
statistics in notes; Doc. Hist, of N. Y., I., 695 ; Channing, Narra- 
gansett Planters, and Ballagh, Slavery in Virginia {Johns Hop- 
kins University Studies, IV., No. iii. and extra vol.). 

2 Hening, Statutes, III., 86, 102, 333, 447 et seq., IV., 133; cf. 
Channing, Narragansett Planters; Ballagh, Slavery in Virginia; 
Steiner, Slavery in Connecticut {Johns Hopkins University 
Studies, IV., No. iii., XI., Nos. ix., x., and extra vol.) 


Opinions differed then, as now, regarding the 
actual grievances of the negro. Burnaby, who 
visited Virginia in 1759, thought slaves were very 
harshly treated; while Byrd, a somewhat fair- 
minded slave-owner, thought they were not worked 
so hard as the poorer people in other countries, and 
that cruelty was exceptional. The house -servants 
of the wealthy planters were doubtless well treated 
and even trained to a certain kind of refinement 
and dignity of manner. The conditions of the half- 
savage field-laborers were quite different, and the 
constant dread of slave insurrections showed how 
largely the servile relation depended upon the su- 
perior force and discipline of the dominant whites.^ 

In the north, the most familiar examples of real 
or imaginary slave insurrections are the so-called 
"negro plots" of 17 12 and 1741 in New York, in 
both of which the danger was grossly exaggerated. 
Both of these " plots " were followed by severe meas- 
ures of repression ; and in the panic of 174 1, on rather 
doubtful evidence, fourteen negroes were burned at 
the stake and eighteen were hanged. In the south- 
ern colonies the large negro population made the 
danger much more real, and the proximity of hostile 
Spaniards and Indians was an additional source of 
embarrassment in South Carolina. The most im- 
portant actual outbreak took place in South Caro- 

* Pinkerton, Voyages, XIII., 714, 750; Bassett, Writings of 
William Byrd, xxxv.; Jones, Present State of Virginia (ed. of 
1865), 37. 




lina in 1739; but the prevalent feeling is shown 
by the elaborate patrol system of the prov- 

The evils of the system were recognized even in 
the south. William Byrd expressed his sympathy 
with the efforts of the Georgia trustees to prohibit 
slavery in their new colony, emphasizing the danger 
of insurrections and the depressing influence of 
slave-labor upon the whites. The southern colonies 
tried to protect themselves from an excessive slave 
population by a number of acts imposing prohibi- 
tory or retaliatory duties; but these acts were fre- 
quently disallowed by the crown. ^ 

Some efforts were made to instruct and Chris- 
tianize the slaves. Eliza Lucas, of South Carolina, 
who afterwards married Chief - Justice Pinckney, 
mentions "a parcel of little Negroes whom I have 
undertaken to teach to read";^ and considerable 
efforts were also made to Christianize the negroes. 
The theory that baptism might work emancipation 
caused some anxiety at first; but it was expressly 
denied by provincial statutes and in a formal dec- 
laration by the bishop of London. Both in the 
northern and the southern colonies negroes became 
members of churches, though their inferior status 

1 A^. y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., V., 341, VI., 195 et seq.; Val- 
entine, Hist, of City of New York, 268-276; McCrady, South 
Carolina under Royal Government, 183-187. 

2 Du Bois, Suppression of the Slave -Trade, chap, ii.; Am. 
Hist. Review. I., 88. 

3 Journal and Letters of Eliza Lucas , 16. 


was marked by their being confined to a special 
comer or gallery/ 

The ethical aspect of slavery was rarely consid- 
ered. Though comparatively few slaves were held 
in New England, this was largely the result of eco- 
nomic considerations, and some of the most promi- 
nent and respected merchants of Boston and Newport 
were deeply involved in the slave-trade.- Here and 
there, however, the moral objection found expression. 

In 1688 the Germantown Quakers protested 
against slave - holding by Friends as contrary to 
the golden rule and a scandal to the society; and 
during the next half - century there were similar 
protests. Nevertheless, many of the Quakers con- 
tinued to hold slaves, and no positive action was 
taken against slavery by the "Yearly Meeting" of 
the society until 1758. Perhaps the finest expression 
of antislavery feeling during this period was Judge 
Sewall's Selling of Joseph. Without neglecting the 
economic argument against slavery, he lays the em- 
phasis upon religious and ethical considerations: 
" These Ethiopians, as black as they are; seeing they 
are the Sons and Daughters of the First Adam, the 
Brethren and Sisters of the Last Adam and the Off- 
spring of God ; They ought to be treated with a Re- 
spect agreeable." ^ 

^ Hening, Statutes, III., 460; McCvady, South Carolina under 
Royal Government, chap. iii. 

2 Moore, Slavery in Mass., 74-77 ; Sharpless, Quaker Experiment 
in Government (ed. of 1902), I., 31; Sewall, Diary, IL, 16-20. 



As late as 1750 the south had scarcely any real 
urban centres. In Maryland the seat of govern- 
ment, Annapolis, was hardly more than a village; 
and Baltimore had hardly a hundred inhabitants. 
In Virginia, Williamsburg had been made the capi- 
tal and had some public buildings which attracted 
attention, but its permanent inhabitants were few. 
Richmond was not laid out as a town until about 
the close of this period. Norfolk, at the entrance of 
Chesapeake Bay, was described by William Byrd 
in 1728 as having "most the ayr of a Town of any 
in Virginia." The principal places of North Carolina 
were mere country villages. South Carolina, alone of 
all the southern colonies, had a real urban centre in 
Charleston,which,more than any other town in Amer- 
ica, concentrated in itself the economic, social, and 
political activity of the colony to which it belonged.^ 

In the middle colonies two important centres of 
population grew up at Philadelphia and New York. 
Philadelphia, in the first sixty years of its history, 
developed into a town of about thirteen thousand 
people and was still growing rapidly when Kalm 
visited it a few years later. Only a few miles away 
was the thriving settlement of Germantown with 
its one street, ''near two English miles long," and 
its four churches, two English and two German. 
The growth of New York was less rapid; in 1703 

^ Winsor, Narr. and Crit. Hist.,V., 261-268; [Burke], European 
Settlements, II., 212, 233; Pinkerton, Voyages, XIII., 
707; Bassett, Writings of William Byrd, 28. 


it had about five thousand inhabitants, white and 
black; in 1741 the number had increased to about 
twelve thousand, and during this decade it stood 
next to Boston and Philadelphia. There were no 
other large towns in the middle colonies; but New 
York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania each had a few 
other substantial places. Parts of this middle re- 
gion were so well occupied with Europeans, that 
according to a contemporary witness, " few parts of 
Europe are more populous."^ 

In New England, town life had, of course, been 
relatively important from the first; and during the 
first half of the eighteenth century Boston held its 
place as the most considerable centre of popula- 
tion and trade on the continent, though the number 
of its inhabitants probably did not much exceed 
twenty thousand. Second in importance among 
the New England towns was Newport, which grew 
very rapidly after the peace of Utrecht. Along the 
coast from New Hampshire to New York were 
such considerable port towns as Portsmouth, Salem, 
New London, and New Haven. In New England 
even more than in the middle colonies the prosperity 
of the large towns rested upon what was, accord- 
ing to the standards of that day, a fairly compact 
surrounding population.^ 

^ Watson, Annals of Philadelphia, II., 404; Kalm,in Pinkerton, 
Voyages, XIII., 395, 406, 449; Valentine, Hist, of City of New 
York, 217 and App. 

2 Weeden, Econ. and Soc. Hist, of New England, II., 583; 
Winsor, Memorial Hist, of Boston II.. 496, 510, 529. 


More important, on the whole, than the forma- 
tion of a few urban centres was the gradual recession 
of the frontier. The rapidity of this movement 
varied greatly at different points along the sea- 
board, but the final result was a surprise to Euro- 
pean observers. One traveller remarked that in 
most places one might travel " about a hundred 
and twenty English miles from the seashore before 
you reach the first habitations of the Indians or 
spend half a year in the seaboard towns without 
seeing an Indian.^ 

On the extreme north the frontier still extended 
to the coast. Only a few years after the peace of 
Utrecht another Indian outbreak, inspired by the 
Jesuit Rale and known as Lovewell's war (1722- 
1725), checked the advance of settlement north and 
east. In 1743 the town of Brunswick, in Maine, 
was one of a little group of exposed frontier settle- 
ments and military posts extending only a short dis- 
tance beyond the Kennebec. In New Hampshire 
there was a movement of settlers up the ■\Ierri- 
mac valley to Concord, and settlements were also 
formed on the east bank of the Connecticut River. 
The first English occupation beyond the river, in 
what is now Vermont, was Fort Dummer, built in 
1724, near the present site of Brattleboro. Farther 
south, the Massachusetts pioneers moved for^^ard 
after Queen Anne's War across the Connecticut val- 
ley into the Berkshire region, first occupied about 
* Kalm, in Pinkerton, Voyages, XIII., 449. 


1725; and the line of settlement was soon carried 
close to the present western boundary of the state. ^ 
In New York, the movement into the interior 
was comparatively slow. In 1740, as in 1690, the 
population of the province v/as confined almost 
wholly to Long Island and to narrow lines of settle- 
ment on both banks of the Hudson between New 
York City and Albany. A few weak German set- 
tlements were formed in the Mohawk valley; and 
on Lake Ontario there was the isolated post of 

The rapidly growing population of Pennsylvania 
made possible a more substantial advance. By 
1744 there were considerable settlements of Ger- 
mans and Scotch-Irish in the Susquehanna valley, 
including the substantial town of Lancaster. On 
the upper Schuylkill, Reading had developed by 
1752 to a place of one hundred and thirty dwellings ; 
and in 1740 the Moravians advanced the frontier 
towards the north by the founding of Bethlehem in 
the Lehigh valley.^ 

More interesting still was the westward move- 
ment in the southern colonies. At the close of the 
seventeenth century the estate of William Byrd 
the elder, at the falls of the James, on the present 
site of Richmond, occupied an isolated frontier 

^Winsor, Narr. and Crit. Hist., V., 127, 181-188; Holland, 

Western Massachusetts, I., chap. x. ; Williamson, Maine, II., 214. 

Watson, Annals of Philadelphia, II., 147-150; Kuhn, Ger- 
man and Swiss Settlements in Colonial Pennsylvania, passim, 


position and was exposed to Indian attacks. Within 
the next fifty years, and especially during the latter 
half of that period, population moved west and up 
the great rivers, the York, the Rappahannock, and 
the James, to the eastern slopes of the Blue Ridge. 
Finally, the southward course of the Scotch-Irish 
and Germans from Pennsylvania into the Great 
Valley beyond the Blue Ridge brought a popula- 
tion which required the organization of new county 
governments. In 1738 the counties of Augusta 
and Frederick were organized, both in the territory 
west of the Blue Ridge. ^ 

In the Carolinas there was a similar development 
though somewhat later in time. When the first 
royal governor of North Carolina, Burrington, began 
his administration in 1731 almost the whole popu- 
lation was to be found close to the coast below the 
falls of the rivers, from the Roanoke southward to 
the Cape Fear. Twenty years later Governor John- 
ston, reporting on the rapid increase of popula- 
tion, especially from Pennsylvania, said that thou- 
sands had already come in; they were settling 
mainly in the west and had nearly reached the 
mountains. In South Carolina also the back set- 
tlements had been only slightly extended before 
1730; but during the next decade settlements of 
Scotch-Irish, Germans, Swiss, and Welsh were made 
in the middle region between the tide-water and 

1 Bassett, Writings of William Byrd, p. xxix. ; Hening, Statutes, 
v.. 78. 


the up-country. Finally, in the fifties, the main 
stream of Scotch-Irish immigration made its way 
into the up-country.* 

^ McCrady, South Carolina under Royal Government, chap. viii. ; 
N. C. Col. Records, III., chap, xii., IV,, 1073. 



WHILE the older colonies were developing by the 
help of immigrants from Europe, occasional 
projects appeared for the organization of new prov- 
inces. In 1690 a proposed charter to a new colo- 
nizing company was submitted to the attorney-gen- 
eral. It provided for a colony in North America, 
lying between the thirty -fourth and the forty-sixth 
degrees of latitude, bounded on the east by the 
western boundaries of New York, Pennsylvania, 
New Jersey, Maryland, and Virginia, and on the 
west by the Pacific. The attorney-general offered 
no objection, but the plan was never carried out. 
Soon after the conquest of Acadia another new 
province was planned between Nova Scotia and 
Maine, but this project also was dropped.^ 

One of the reasons most frequently urged for 
new settlements was the formation of a barrier 
against rival colonizing powers; and the need of 
such a barrier colony was especially felt on the ex- 

* Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1689-1692, p. 761 ; Hutchinson, Hist, 
of Mass. Bay, II., 203. 

VOL. VI.— -18 240 


posed frontier of South Carolina. Here, in the 
wilderness now occupied by the states of Georgia 
and Alabama, the traders and soldiers of England, 
France, and Spain were competing for the Indian 
trade and for ultimate political control. Within the 
present limits of Georgia there had been almost no 
permanent occupation by white men before the 
year 1733, but explorers, during the latter part of 
the seventeenth century, brought reports of Span- 
iards working mines in the mountainous regions of 
upper Georgia. The French, too, with their head- 
quarters on Mobile Bay, were reaching out to se- 
cure a monopoly of the Indian trade. 

To this region the English had already asserted 
their title by the charter of 1665, which extended 
the nominal jurisdiction of the Carolina proprie- 
tors to the twenty-ninth parallel, several miles 
south of St. Augustine. This extreme claim was 
never enforced ; but early in the eighteenth century 
the South Carolina government began to push for- 
ward its posts into and beyond the valley of the 
Savannah. In 17 16 Fort Moore was established on 
the Savannah opposite the present site of Augusta, 
Georgia. In 172 1 Fort King George was established 
on the Altamaha and garrisoned by a few British 
regulars. This fort was abandoned in 1727, but 
another had already been built on the western bank 
of the Savannah, which was maintained until 1735.* 

» Charter in Carroll, Hist. Collections of S. C, II., 39; Smith, 
South Carolina, 208. 

1733] . GEORGIA 

In 1730 a vigorous effort was made to counter- 
act the French influence among the Indians of the 
hill cotmtry by sending Sir Alexander Cuming on a 
dangerous but successful mission to the Cherokees, 
which resulted, in their acknowledging the English 
supremacy and promising the monopoly of their 
trade.^ Thus when, two years later, the British 
government renewed its claims to the disputed re- 
gion by granting a considerable part of it to the 
Georgia trustees, the step was a natural develop- 
ment from the policy of the previous decade. 

In the final settlement of Georgia this idea of a 
barrier colony was combined with a distinctly phil- 
anthropic motive. The new province should serve 
as a barrier against foreign attacks and a safe- 
guard of English interests in America; but it was 
also to be a refuge for the unfortunate. Both of 
these motives are explicitly stated in the charter 
of the colony and both are admirably illustrated in 
the personality and the public career of its founder. 

James Edward Oglethorpe was born in 1689, 
and had therefore reached middle life before his 
American career began. After a short military 
service in the English and Austrian armies, he en- 
tered the House of Commons in 1722, and, in spite 
of his prolonged absences in America, he retained 
his membership for over thirty years. He soon be- 
came a conspicuous member and showed the breadth 
of his public interests by speeches on a variety of 

^Winsor, Mississippi Basin, 183; Jones, Georgia, I., 76-80. 


subjects. He agreed with Walpole's critics in de- 
manding a more aggressive assertion of English in- 
terests against the Spaniards, and he objected to a 
treaty with the emperor, because it failed to secure 
the Protestants of Germany against religious per- 
secution; he also showed his appreciation of the 
colonial point of view by opposing the molasses act 
of 1733. The words attributed to him on this occa- 
sion deserved to be remembered : " Our colonies are 
all a part of our own dominions ; the people in every 
one of them are our own people, and we ought to 
show an equal respect to all." * 

The most attractive aspect of Oglethorpe's par- 
liamentary career is his disinterested service in be- 
half of poor debtors. Not only were honest debtors 
then generally subjected to the humiliation of ar- 
rest and imprisonment, but they were frequently 
placed at the mercy of jailers who had purchased 
their appointments and regarded them as invest- 
ments. Oglethorpe became interested in the re- 
form of this system, and in 1729 he secured from 
the Commons the appointment of a committee of 
inquiry. As chairman of this committee he made 
a series of reports to the house, bringing to light 
many instances of extreme cruelty and extortion. 

Oglethorpe was now convinced of the existence 
of a large class of honest but unfortunate people 
who might under the more favorable conditions of 

* Wright, Oglethorpe, chaps, i.-iii.; Cobbett, Parliamentary 
History, VIII., 920. 

1732^] GEORGIA 1253 

a new country, and with a little assistance at the 
start, be enabled ultimately to stand on their own 
feet . Public interest had been awakened by the recent 
investigations, and almost at the same time the sur- 
render of the Carolina charter left the field clear for the 
founding of a new colony on the southern frontier. 

Many prominent noblemen and clergymen agreed 
to support the enterprise; and in June, 1732, they 
received a royal charter incorporating them as " the 
Trustees for establishing the colony of Georgia in 
America." The objects of the colony were de- 
clared to be two: first, the relief of the king's poor 
subjects" who in the New World might "not only 
gain a comfortable subsistence for themselves and 
families, but also strengthen our colonies and in- 
crease the trade, navigation, and wealth" of the 
kingdom; secondly, the protection of the frontier 
against the attacks of the savages.' 

The territory of the new colony was defined as 
that lying between the Savannah and Altamaha 
rivers and extending from their head-waters west- 
ward to the "south seas." An undivided eighth 
part of this territory was still the property of Lord 
Carteret, one of the Carolina proprietors who had 
refused to yield his share in the original Carolina 
grant. The trustees, however, promptly secured 
the surrender of Carteret's claim. 

* Charter, in Poore, Charters and Constitutions, I,; Some Ac- 
count of the Designs of the Trustees {Am. Colonial Tracts, I., 
No. ii.). 


This charter was a return to the principle of pro- 
prietary government. The soil of the colony and 
the government of its people were intrusted to a 
private corporation which was to exercise authority 
over the colonists without reference to any repre- 
sentative assembly. It differs from the older char- 
ters, however, in two important respects. In the 
first place, the enterprise was purely disinterested: 
members of the corporation were expressly pro- 
hibited from receiving any profits from membership 
or the holding of office, and all the lands of the 
colony, with an}^ contributions which might be re- 
ceived, were to be held in trust. In the second 
place, the reserved rights of the crown were more 
strongly asserted than in any previous proprietar}^ 
charter. The corporation was required to present 
annual reports of receipts and expenditures, and all 
its legislation was to be submitted to the crown for 
approval. Every new governor had to be approved 
by the crown and was required to take the oaths 
and offer the financial securities usually required of 
royal governors. Even this modified proprietary 
government was to be temporar}^, for after twent}'- 
one years Georgia was to become a royal province. 

The charter provisions, taken together with the 
early legislation of the trustees, bring out clearly the 
benevolent paternalism of the founders. The cor- 
poration w^as authorized to transport foreigners who 
were willing to become subjects of the crown, and 
religious liberty was promised to all except ''pa- 



pists." A niimber of the regulations show the de- 
sire of the trustees to protect the moral and eco- 
nomic welfare of the colonists even, if necessary, 
against themselves. Thus, though the charter al- 
lowed one person to hold land up to five hundred 
acres, the maxim imi grant was made only to those 
who transported at least ten persons to the colony. 
These grants were entailed so that they could not 
be alienated or divided, and according to the origi- 
nal regulations estates could only pass to male 
heirs, reverting in the absence of such heirs to the 
trustees. The purpose of these rules was to pro- 
tect the settlers against their own improvidence, to 
prevent the formation of excessively large estates, 
and to build up a considerable soldier-farmer class. 

A logical part of this plan for developing a class 
of small landed proprietors was the prohibition of 
slavery. In South Carolina the system of large 
plantations worked by savage negro slaves had ex- 
posed the small white population to serious dangers 
from slave insurrections. The large number of 
fugitive slaves protected by the Spaniards and some- 
times enlisted in their military service was also a 
serious annoyance. These dangers the trustees 
wished to avoid in their new colony; in close con- 
tact with the slave-holding plantation system of 
South Carolina they hoped to establish a new com- 
munity founded on the opposite principle of free 
labor. The trustees also imposed important re- 
strictions on trade : no rum was to be imported into 


the colony, and no trade could be carried on with 
the Indians without a license.* 

The trustees now set themselves to secure de- 
sirable immigrants. They were ready to help the 
unfortunate, but they did not wish to fill up the 
colony with recruits from the vicious and degener- 
ate classes. Besides, the funds of the trustees were 
insufficient to enable them to send over all who 
wished to take advantage of this opportunity. 
Hence, a careful sifting process became necessary. 
By the autumn of 1732, however, about one hun- 
dred men, women, and children had been gathered, 
including men of various occupations: carpenters, 
bricklayers, and farmers are among those men- 
tioned. Oglethorpe offered to asstmie the conduct 
of the colony, and was accordingly appointed its 
first governor. After a voyage of nearly two 
months the colonists arrived at Charleston in 
January, 1733.' 

South Carolina was strongly interested in the 
formation of this new barrier colony, and Ogle- 
thorpe and his charges were cordially received. 
Temporary quarters were provided for the settlers 
in the frontier port of Beaufort, and both the gov- 
ernment and the people showed every disposition 
to help in putting the new colony on its feet. 

In the mean time, Oglethorpe had to undertake 

1 Account Showing the Progress of Georgia (Am. Colonial Tracts, 
I., No. v.). 

' Jbid.; Jones, Georgia, I., chaps, vi., vii. 




the delicate and important task of reaching a satis- 
factory understanding with the Indians. The east- 
em part of the new province was mainly occupied 
by various Creek tribes. With the help of an Ind- 
ian woman who had married a white trader, Ogle- 
thorpe entered into negotiations with the chief of 
one of these tribes, and secured from him a grant 
of land near the mouth of the Savannah. With 
the help of the same chief, a convention of the lower 
Creek Indians was subsequently held and a treaty of 
alHance was entered into. The Indians surrendered 
a tract of land near the coast between the Savannah 
and the Altamaha, and agreed to have no communi- 
cation with the French and the Spaniards. These 
arrangements, subsequently agreed to by the Ind- 
ians of the back country, were formally ratified by 
the common council of the trustees, and proved 
effective in protecting the colony from Indian at- 
tacks during the critical period of its early history.* 
Before these negotiations were completed, Ogle- 
thorpe had brought his colonists to the tract ceded 
by Tomochichi and laid the foundations of the 
present city of Savannah. By the summer of 1733, 
the town had been laid out and lands allotted to 
individual settlers, in regular assignments including 
a town lot, a garden, and a farm — in all, fifty acres. 
For the first ten years the land was to be held rent 
free; but after that an annual rent of two shillings 
was to be paid. During the early stages of the 
* Text of treaty in Jones, Georgia, I., 141-144. 


settlement the inhabitants were dependent upon 
the common stock; they were governed by Ogle- 
thorpe in paternalistic fashion, and for many years 
the colony had only the most rudimentary political 

In 1734 an important new element was intro- 
duced by the coming of the Protestant Germans 
from Salzburg. These Germans were subjects of 
the Catholic archbishop of Salzburg, who had been 
driven by his persecution to seek refuge in vari- 
ous other states and countries, including Prussia 
and England. In December, 1733, the trustees 
agreed to transport a considerable number of them 
to Georgia. They were to receive their passage 
and allowances for tools, provisions, and seed, and 
were to have in the province all the rights and privi- 
leges of Englishmen. Under the direction of a Ger- 
man nobleman, the Baron von Reck, and of their 
Lutheran ministers, a company of them came to 
Georgia in 1734. The chief settlement of the Salz- 
burgers was at Ebenezer, a little north of Savannah 
on a small tributary of the Savannah River. They 
soon, however, removed to a new site a few miles 
away; both the old and the new Ebenezer have 
long disappeared from the map of the state. The 
original company was subsequently reinforced by 
others of the same nationality, most of whom set- 
tled in the region between Savannah and Ebenezer. 

^ Jones, Georgia, I., 155 et seq.; Account Showing the Progress 
of Georgia, 44-46. 



In 1735 a Moravian settlement was begun, but the 
unwillingness of these people to perform military 
service made them unpopular and they soon found 
a more congenial home in Pennsylvania. 

By 1 741 it was estimated by the secretary of 
the trustees that at least twelve hundred German 
Protestants had arrived in the colony. The Ger- 
mans maintained a distinct community life, whose 
most striking characteristics as recorded by con- 
temporary observers were the industry of the peo- 
ple, the strong influence of their clerical leaders, 
and the primitive simplicity of their civil organiza- 
tion. They had for some time no regular court of 
justice, and their disputes were settled by the min- 
isters in concert with three or four of "the most 
prudent Elders." 

A more aggressive group of colonists came from 
the Highlands of Scotland. About one hundred 
and eighty people were sent out in 1735 and formed 
their first settlement on the north bank of the 
Altamaha, a few miles above its mouth; the dis- 
trict was named Darien and the first town New 
Inverness. A fort was constructed here and the 
colony was afterwards strengthened by new arrivals 
from Scotland; for the Highlanders, unlike most 
of the Germans, took an important part in the de- 
fence of the frontier.^ 

From the beginning, military and defensive con- 

* Jones, Georgia,!., chaps, xi.-xiv.; Stevens, Georgia, I., 85- 


siderations exerted a strong influence on the policy 
of the trustees. Georgia, more nearly than any 
of the other North American provinces, approxi- 
mates the Roman conception of a military colony 
planted for the defence of the empire. Nowhere 
does this policy appear more clearly than in the 
post of Frederica, at the extreme limit of the char- 
ter grant, on St. Simon's Island at the mouth of the 
Altamaha. Beginning in 1736 as a military post, 
the town and its approaches were laid out with 
definite reference to defence against the Spaniards. 
Its people were largely engaged in supplying the 
soldiers, and when, at the close of the war, the 
troops were withdrawn the town rapidly declined.* 
A more substantial and permanent settlement was 
developing on the northern frontier at Augusta. 
Here on the Savannah River a fort was established 
in 1735, and a town laid out which soon became an 
important centre for the Indian trade, especially 
with the Cherokees. Besides these principal towns, 
there were a number of small villages or private 
plantations in the low country adjoining Savannah 
and extending southward along the coast towards 
the Ogeechee. These settlements suffered from un- 
healthy situations and some of them soon disap- 

'Jones, Dead Towns of Ga. (Ga. Hist. Soc, Collections, IV.), 
No. ii. 

^ Ihid., esp. Nos. Hi., vii.; A State of the Province of Georgia 
{Am. Colonial Tracts, I., No. ii.). 




From the outset the young colony was obliged 
to guard against attack by the Spaniards at St. 
Augustine, who regarded the Georgians, like the 
Virginians and Carolinians before them, as mere in- 
truders. The charter grants of Carolina and Geor- 
gia constituted a direct defiance of Spanish pre- 
tensions ; but the challenge was brought closer home 
when Oglethorpe, not content with his colony at 
Frederica, established a series of small miHtary 
posts extending from the Altamaha to the St. 
John's River, well within the limits of the present 
state of Florida. 

The Walpole ministry strongly desired to avoid 
war, and in 1736 an English agent was sent to St. 
Augustine to settle the dispute; conferences were 
also held by Oglethorpe with some of the Spanish 
officers. No final agreement could be reached, how- 
ever, and with threatening language the Spanish 
agents asserted their claim to all the coast so far 
north as St. Helena Sound, only a few miles be- 
low Charleston. 

It was now necessary to make thorough prepara- 
tion for defence, and Oglethorpe returned to Eng- 
land for this purpose in the winter of 173 6- 1737. 
The Spanish government demanded his recall ; but 
in answer to a petition from the trustees, he was au- 
thorized to raise a regiment of troops for Georgia, 
of which he himself was colonel. Some additional 
regulars were sent directly from Gibraltar, and Ogle- 
thorpe was also made commander-in-chief of all the 


royal forces in South Carolina. He returned to 
Georgia in 1738 with instructions to maintain a 
cautious defensive attitude until actually attacked. 
Then he might adopt any necessary measures 
whether defensive or offensive. 

One of the most essential conditions of success 
in the conflict with the Spaniards was the good-will 
of the Indians. This was now endangered, partl}^ 
by the misconduct of English traders and partly by 
the intrigues of the Spaniards. To guard against 
this danger, Oglethorpe undertook, in 1739, a long 
and dangerous journey into the back country to 
Coweta, the principal town of the Creek Indians, 
where he secured a renewal of their alliance with 
the English.^ 

Soon after this mission word came to Georgia of 
the formal declaration of war between England and 
Spain, brought on chiefly by the increasing friction 
between English merchants and Spanish customs 
officials. On the Georgia frontier the chief interest 
of the war lies in two leading operations, the English 
attack on St. Augustine and the successful defence 
of St. Simon's Island against the Spaniards. 

In 1740 St. Augustine was believed to be weak- 
ened by the want of provisions and by the sending 
of a part of its naval force to Havana. Oglethorpe 
proposed to take this opportunity for an offensive 

* Wright, Oglethorpe, chaps, viii.-xii.; Oglethorpe's letters in 
Ga. Hist. Soc, Collections, 111., 28-43, 55. 81; Stevens, Georgia, 
I., 145-159- 




movement, and it was agreed that with the help 
of the South-Carolinians, the Indians, and some 
vessels of the royal navy, St. Augustine was to be 
attacked by sea and land. The land forces were 
to cut off Spanish supplies from the interior and the 
fleet was to prevent relief by reinforcements from 
the West Indies. The combined forces arrived at 
St. Augustine and began a siege ; but they failed to 
work effectively together and the result was a 
himiiliating failure.^ 

In the following year Oglethorpe reported that 
the Spaniards had been strongly reinforced and 
were planning an invasion of South Carolina and 
Georgia. Appeals were made to the home govern- 
ment and to South Carolina, but with little effect. 
Finally, in 1742, the blow fell. A formidable invad- 
ing expedition was organized, consisting of some 
four or five thousand men with a considerable fleet, 
and a landing was effected at the southern end of 
St. Simon's Island. Oglethorpe had only a few hun- 
dred men for the defence of Frederica, but the 
character of the road which the Spaniards were 
obliged to take was such that they could be at- 
tacked in detail and in disadvantageous positions. 
These opportunities were effectively used and the 
attacking army was defeated and demoralized. Over- 
estimating the opposing force, the Spaniards withdrew 
from the island and the invasion was abandoned. 

' Jones, Georgia, I., chap. xxi. ; McCrady, South Carolina under 
^oyal Government, chaps, xi,, xii. 


In 1743, Oglethorpe led a retaliatory expedition 
into the immediate vicinity of St. Augustine, but 
before the end of that year he returned to Eng- 
land and there were no subsequent military op- 
erations of any importance on the Georgia fron- 
tier. Though the offensive movements of the 
English failed to accomplish any positive result, 
the significant fact of the war was that they 
had held their ground and could not be dis- 

The early years of the colony were also troubled 
by internal dissensions, many of which were petty 
enough. One small affair has gained a certain his- 
torical interest because of the subsequent career of 
one of the persons involved. In 1736 the brothers 
John and Charles Wesley came to Georgia, John as 
minister of the Anglican church in Savannah and 
Charles as Oglethorpe's private secretary. Both the 
brothers showed at this stage in their careers some 
lack of tact in their criticism of their neighbors. 
John Wesley was very popular at the outset, but 
his aggressive churchmanship soon gave offence; 
and his attempt to discipline a young woman whom 
he had himself courted before her marriage pro- 
voked so much feeling that he was indicted on a 
series of petty charges. The case was never brought 
to trial; but Wesley was convinced that his useful- 
ness in the colony was ended, and shortly afterwards 

* Jones, Georgia, I., chap, xxii.; Ga. Hist. Soc, Collections, 
III., 117-155; Gentleman's Magazine, XII,, 694-696. 




sailed for England after a stay of less than two 
years in Georgia.^ 

Almost from the beginning there was a consider- 
able element in the colony antagonistic to Ogle- 
thorpe, and, indeed, to the general policy of the trus- 
tees. Some of the opposition leaders were forced 
out of the colony; and, taking refuge in South 
Carolina, they published a vehement criticism of 
the Georgia government, charging Oglethorpe with 
arbitrary conduct and emphasizing his failure in 
the campaign against St. Augustine. Great stress 
was laid on the misconduct of the "storekeeper" 
who had been left in charge of colonial affairs dur- 
ing one of Oglethorpe's visits to England, though 
the trustees had already dismissed the offender 
from their service. The chief point of historical 
interest in this partisan statement is the claim that 
the growth of the colony had been checked by cer- 
tain principles of economic policy which the trus- 
tees regarded as essential; the writers especially 
emphasize the prohibition of slavery and the re- 
strictions imposed on the alienation of land. 

In 1738 over one htmdred of the freeholders 
signed at Savannah a petition to the trustees as- 
serting that unless these restrictions were removed 
they could not compete successfully with their 
neighbors to the north. They urged, therefore, 
that lands should henceforth be granted in fee-sim- 

* Tailfer, True and Historical Narrative {Am. Colonial Tracts. 
I., No. iv.), 32-39; Jones, Georgia, I., chap, xviii. 

VOL. VI. — ig 


pie and that the introduction of negroes "with 
proper limitations" should be permitted. The 
Scotch settlers in Darien and the Salzburgers were 
equally convinced that slavery would be injurious 
to their interests, and sent in counter - petitions. 
The trustees rejected the Savannah petition, though 
they relaxed somewhat the restrictions on the alien- 
ation of land. In 1742 the opposition party sent 
an agent to London, who tried by petition to se- 
cure a parliamentary declaration against the policy 
of the trustees; but the House of Commons voted 
down a resolution in favor of slavery in Georgia, 
and the petitioner was reprimanded by the speaker 
for his false, scandalous, and malicious charges" 
against the trustees.* 

Nevertheless, the agitation against the policy of 
the trustees continued. The production of silk and 
wine, which had been intended to serve as the chief 
staples of the colony, failed to develop on any con- 
siderable scale, and it was believed that, in the pro- 
duction of rice, white labor could not compete with 
that of negro slaves. It was found difficult also to 
hold in the colony enough white laborers. 

Among those who urged the legalization of slavery 
were James Habersham, an influential merchant; and 
the famous missionary, Whitefield, who had founded 

*Tailfer, True and Historical Narrative; Account (Am. Colo- 
nial Tracts, I., Nos, iv., v.); Samuel Quincy's letter, in Hart, 
Contemporaries, II., 116; Journals of the House of Commons (ed. 
of 1803), XXIV., 192, 216, 221, 288. 



an orphan house in Georgia and believed that its 
success had been impaired by the want of negro 
slaves. In this state of public feeling the prohibi- 
tion of slavery gradually became ineffective and in 
1749 it was finally repealed, though as a pre- 
caution against slave insurrections the proportion 
of negroes to white servants was limited. The 
other restrictive regulations were also abandoned. 
In accordance with a vote of the House of Com- 
mons the trustees repealed the act prohibiting the 
importation of rum, and in 1750 the restrictions 
on the tenure and alienation of land were removed. 

After the removal of these restrictions Georgia 
developed much more rapidly, and a considerable 
movement of planters from South Carolina began 
into the so-called Midway District between the Ogee- 
chee and South Newport rivers. These planters 
brought their slaves with them in such large num- 
bers that a contemporary writer estimated the 
negroes brought into the colony during the years 
1 75 1 and 1752 at nearly a thousand. Thus the low 
country of Georgia began, in spite of the theories 
of the trustees, to reproduce in its essential features 
the social system of South Carolina.^ 

The political experience of Georgia was in many 
respects unlike that of any other English colony. 
No provision was made in the charter for a repre- 
sentative legislature and none was established un- 

» Jones, Georgia, I., chaps, xxv., xxvi., xxx.; Stevens, Georgia, 


der the proprietary government. An assembly 
which met in 175 1 was not authorized to make 
laws, but only "to propose, debate, and represent 
to the Trustees." 

The superior legislative authority was vested in 
the trustees, but a large discretion was left to their 
agents in the colony. At first, Oglethorpe had an 
indefinite paternalistic authority over the whole 
province, but a local government was soon organ- 
ized at Savannah; and in 1 741, while Oglethorpe was 
making Frederica his military headquarters, the 
colony was divided into two counties, one including 
the territory extending from the Savannah to a lit- 
tle beyond the Ogeechee, and the other covering 
all the territory to the southward. Oglethorpe re- 
tained direct control of Frederica, but the govern- 
ment of the northern county was intrusted to 
William Stephens, the former secretary of the 
trustees, with four assistants. In 1743, on Ogle- 
thorpe's final departure for England, the authority 
of President Stephens and his assistants was ex- 
tended over the whole province. This arrange- 
ment continued until the surrender of the charter 
and the final institution of the royal government in 
1754. After that date the government of Georgia 
was substantially that of the typical royal province, 
with its governor and council appointed by the 
king and its assembly chosen by the people.* 

* Account Showing the Progress of Georgia, 45 ; Stevens, Georgia, 
I., 216-261, 372, 381-384, 



In caring for the religious interests of their prov- 
ince the trustees showed in the main a broad and 
tolerant spirit. Men of all religious faiths, except 
that of the Roman Catholic church, were allowed 
freedom of worship. The population of the colony 
included Anglicans, Presbyterians, Moravians, Lu- 
therans, Anabaptists, and Jews, the latter sect being 
sufficiently numerous to rent a room in Savannah 
for their public worship. Among the most con- 
spicuous and influential men in the colony were 
the Lutheran ministers, such as Martin Bolzius, 
who served the religious interests of the German 
population. With all this variety the Anglican 
church had the advantage of special official recog- 
nition: several of the trustees were well-known 
Anglican clergymen ; with the first company of colo- 
nists they sent out an Episcopal chaplain ; and with 
the help of the Venerable Society they maintained 
a succession of ministers for the church of Savan- 
nah, including such distinguished men as John Wes- 
ley and George Whitefield. 

At the beginning of the revolutionary era Georgia 
still remained much the smallest and weakest of 
the thirteen colonies. As late as 1760 it had a 
population of about ten thousand people, of whom 
over three thousand were negroes. Its historical 
significance lies mainly in its advanced position on 
the Anglo-Spanish frontier.^ 

^ ] ones, Georgia, I., 440-449, 541; Stevens, Georgia, I., 319- 




'HE growth of population just described im- 

1 plies a corresponding development of econom- 
ic activity, partly on lines already indicated and 
partly in new directions.^ In the south the most 
important characteristic of the period is the gradual 
rounding out and crystallizing of the plantation 
system. In Virginia during the seventeenth cen- 
tury the tendency to form large estates, favored by 
the physiographical conditions and the almost ex- 
clusive cultivation of tobacco, was somewhat re- 
strained by the rule limiting grants to fifty acres 
for each person actually imported. These head- 
rights gradually became more valuable, till, in 1699, 
the council fixed a definite purchase price for land 
in sterling money. Very large grants now became 
common: Governor Spotswood signed on one occa- 
sion several grants of ten, twenty, and forty thou- 
sand acres, including an aggregate of over eighty- 
six thousand for himself. Theoretically, grants were 

* Cf. Andrews, Colonial Self -Government (Am. Nation, V.), 
chaps, xviii., xix. 




conditioned upon occupation and improvement, but 
the land administration was in the hands of the 
governor and council, or even sometimes of the 
councillors alone, who, being themselves large land- 
owners, were lax in enforcing rules which operated 
against the interests of their class. An extreme il- 
lustration is furnished by the record of William 
Byrd, of Westover, the most famous Virginian 
planter of the early eighteenth century. Byrd in- 
herited from his father an estate of some twenty- 
six thousand acres, added to it at various times by 
fresh grants, one of which amounted to over one 
hundred thousand acres, and owned when he died 
no less than 179,440 acres of the best land in Vir- 
ginia." ^ 

Similar laxity in other parts of the south re- 
sulted in a similar absorption of landed estates in 
comparatively few hands; the tendency was least 
marked in North Carolina and most so in South 
Carolina. The Carolina proprietors had begun by 
granting some large tracts, or baronies; but they 
afterwards tried to keep grants within more mod- 
erate limits; and, under the royal government, 
efforts were made to resume lands which had been 
improperly taken out in the first instance or never 
actually occupied. The best lands of South Caro- 
lina were monopolized by a few landholders and 
speculators ; and after the overthrow of the propri- 
etary government their claims were confirmed by a 
* Bassett, Writings of William Byrd, Introd, 


statute of 1 73 1 which, though strongly opposed by 
the royal surveyor-general, finally escaped disal- 
lowance. By 1732 it was estimated that there 
were not "one thousand acres within one hundred 
miles of Charleston or within twenty miles of a 
river or navigable creek which were not already 
taken possession of." Many estates so formed were 
held together by the system of entails, which in Vir- 
ginia during the early years of the eighteenth cen- 
tury became even stricter than that of the mother- 
country. Land and slaves became the dominant 
passion of the planter, who could rarely be induced 
"to sell or even lease the smallest portion of his 
lands." ' 

As the land system developed, the growing im- 
port trade in slaves furnished the kind of cheap 
labor desired for the great estates, and, especially 
in Virginia and South Carolina, gradually super- 
seded the system of white service in the fields. In 
Maryland, however, white service continued to be 
important.^ Notwithstanding all efforts towards di- 
versification, Virginia and Maryland continued dur- 
ing this period to devote themselves almost wholly 
to tobacco. For the marketing of this product the 
planter was dependent upon the London merchants, 
who sent out their ships, not to a few trading ports 
in the colony, but up the rivers to the individual 

* Smith, South Carolina, 28-70, esp. 41; Ballagh, Land Sys- 
tem in the South (Am. Hist. Assoc., Report, 1897), 117; Hening, 
Statutes, III., 320. 2 See above, p. 237. 



plantations, though the large planters sometimes 
acted as agents for their neighbors. The attempts 
to establish towns at which tobacco might be col- 
lected for export, especially by the small planters, 
were almost wholly unsuccessful. The planters 
complained of exorbitant freight rates, and, indeed, 
of difficulty in securing regular transportation on 
any terms. The small planters suffered most; but 
even the larger planters with their regular corre- 
spondents in London sometimes failed to secure 
sufficient shipping. 

The London merchant was the planter's agent in 
the purchase of goods as well as in the sale of to- 
bacco, and the natural result was a large develop- 
ment of the credit system. The long delays in ex- 
change between America and England often left the 
planter in considerable uncertainty as to the exact 
extent of his balance. Thus a Virginia planter 
wrote to his agent in 1695, pressing him to send his 
account at once, "for not knowing how my account 
stands, I dare not send for goods though my wants 
are very great and pressing." This system certainly 
did not promote sound business methods, and many 
of the larger land-owners were, like Byrd himself, 
heavily in debt to their English agents.^ 

It was essential to the prosperity of the tobacco 
colonies that their products should maintain a good 

^ Bassett, Writings of William Byrd, xxxv.-xxxix. ; Bassett, 
Virginia Planter and London Merchant (Am. Hist. Assoc., Report, 
1901, I.), 553-575- 




standard of quality, and this need was a frequent 
subject of provincial legislation. In this respect 
i\Iaryland was less fortunate than Virginia, and her 
trade was seriously depressed in consequence. Bills 
for the inspection of tobacco, with a view to en- 
hancing its price, were strongly urged by the small 
planters, who were relatively strong in the lower 
house; but the insistence of the latter on reducing 
the fees of public officers, regularly paid in tobacco, 
prevented the passage of such a measure by the of- 
fice-holders in the council, until 1747, when a satis- 
factory compromise was reached and efficient in- 
spection secured.^ 

No one product in the Carolinas had quite the 
same position in provincial life which tobacco had 
in Virginia, although in South Carolina rice soon 
became the chief article of export, and competed 
with great success in the markets of southern 
Europe. This promising trade was checked in 1705 
by an English statute which added rice to the list 
of enumerated articles; but in 1730 the restriction 
was removed as to ports south of Cape Finisterre, 
and the trade revived, though not on the scale 
which had been hoped for. Indigo, later second 
to rice as a staple export, was not produced in 
considerable quantities until near the middle of the 
eighteenth century. Both the Carolinas produced 
considerable quantities of lumber, of naval stores, 
including pitch and tar, and of provisions ; but North 

* Mereness, Maryland, 106-118. 




Carolina had no one important staple, and her aggre- 
gate production for export was comparatively small. 
The most striking economic difference between South 
Carolina trade and that of the tobacco colonies was 
its concentration in the one important port of 
Charleston; but there was no such development in 
North Carolina.* 

The engrossing of estates by a few large owners 
and the increasing use of slave -labor checked the 
development of an independent small-farmer class 
and discouraged immigration. In North Carolina, 
however, where land could be had on easier terms, 
and where governmental authority was compara- 
tively lax, the population was quite different from 
that of tide-water Virginia or South Carolina, and the 
large planter did not have the same overshadowing 
importance as in the two neighboring colonies = At 
the other extreme of the social scale stood the 
shiftless farmers whom William Byrd described so 
effectively in his History of the Dividing Line, who 
kept so many Sabbaths every week, that their dis- 
regard of the Seventh Day has no manner of cruelty 
in it, either to Servants or Cattle"; they loitered 
*'away their lives, like Solomon's Sluggard, with 
their Arms across, and at the Winding up of the 
Year scarcely have Bread to Eat." Yet some al- 
lowance must be made for the prejudices of a Vir- 

^McCrady, South Carolina under Royal Government, 109, 262- 
265; N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., V., 609; Anderson, Origin 
of Commerce, III., 200, 224, 229; N. C. Col. Records, III., xv. 



ginia planter ; and undoubtedly there stood between 
these two extremes a substantial though less pict- 
uresque class of small farmers.^ 

In the second quarter of the century the Scotch- 
Irish and German immigration was just beginning 
to complicate the social structure of the planter 
colonies by bringing in a class of settlers who cul- 
tivated comparatively small farms on the frontiers, 
without slaves for the most part, and produced 
wheat instead of tobacco or rice. They were still, 
however, of minor importance in southern life. 

The industrial life of the northern colonies was 
developing on lines clearly divergent from that of 
the south. There is nothing comparable to the great 
plantation systems of Virginia and South Carolina, 
except among some exceptional communities like 
the Narragansett and Hudson River farmers. In New 
York the English governors after the revolution of 
1689 continued the practice of lavish grants begun 
under the Dutch regime; but these grants failed 
to develop to any large extent a real plantation 
system, for the number of slaves imported was 
comparatively small. On the other hand, few im- 
migrants cared to become tenants on the great es- 
tates. The chief effect of this unwise administra- 
tion was, therefore, to divert immigration to other 
provinces. Generally speaking, therefore, the mid- 
dle colonies as well as those of New England con- 
tinued to be occupied by comparatively small hold- 
^ Bassett, Writings of William Byrd, chap, xii., 61, 76. 

I740] INDUSTRY 277 

ings, not isolated economic units like the Virginia 
plantations, but grouped together in more or less 
compact communities.^ 

The labor system of the north shows a similar 
divergence from southern conditions. Negroes were 
few% and though white servants were numerous in 
Pennsylvania, even they did not form a permanent- 
ly servile class. Aristocratic usages and traditions 
existed, but the general trend of economic develop- 
ment was towards a democratic society. The great- 
er variety of northern industry appeared the mo- 
ment one passed from the Chesapeake colonies into 
Pennsylvania. In 1700, Robert Quarry reported 
that the Pennsylvanians as the result of their in- 
dustry had made "bread, fiow^er and Beer a drugg 
in all the Markets in the West Indies." In later 
years beef, pork, and lumber appear as important 
articles of export. The agricultural products of 
New York and New Jersey were in the main similar 
to those of Pennsylvania. In a word, the middle 
colonies were the great producers of provisions.^ 

The colonists still depended mainly upon England 
for their clothing and other manufactures, though 
their early experiments in this field were important 
enough to arouse the jealousy of the mother-country. 
In these enterprises the southern colonies were ob- 

^N. Y. Docs. Rel to Col. Hist., V., 368-371; cf. Ballagh, 
Land System in the South (Am. Hist. Assoc. Report, 1897), no- 
113; Shepherd, Proprietary Goveryiment in Pa., 45 et seq. 

2 y. Docs. Rel. to Col Hist.,Y., 601-604, 686; Ames, Pa. and 
tlie English Govt. 




served to be far less active and successful than those 
of the north. The Board of Trade declared in 1732 
that there were "more trades carried on and manu- 
factures set up in the provinces on the continent of 
America to the northward of Virginia, prejudicial 
to the trade and manufactures of Great Britain, 
particularly in New England, than in any other of 
the British colonies." ^ 

The colonial woollen industry which Parliament 
had attempted to check by the act of 1698 con- 
tinued to be an object of special interest and sus- 
picion to the Board of Trade. During Queen Anne's 
War and the consequent interruption of trade, there 
was apparently a considerable development of the 
industry, especially in New England. In 1708 a 
zealous royal official in New England made the ex- 
treme assertion with regard to the country people 
that "not one in forty but wears his own carding, 
spinning, etc."; and soon afterwards Governor Dud- 
ley reported that "the people here clothe them- 
selves with their own wool, though they would be 
glad to buy English wool if they could afford it." 
Later reports, however, indicate no considerable de- 
velopment beyond the production of the coarser 
grades for domestic use, which went on more or less 
in all the colonies. There were also some manu- 
factures of linen, as among the Germans of Penn- 
sylvania and the Scotch-Irish of New Hampshire. 

One detail of clothing acquired during this period 
* Anderson, Origin of Commerce, III., 194. 

1732] INDUSTRY 279 

an unusual historic importance. In 1721 the Board 
of Trade noted in its report on New England that 
" some hatters have lately set up their trade in the 
principal Towns." The industry also appeared in 
New York, presently came to the knowledge of the 
London Company of Feltmakers, and finally called 
forth an act of Parliament in 1732 prohibiting the 
export of hats from one colony to another, requir- 
ing for makers of hats an apprenticeship of seven 
years, and forbidding any master to employ more 
than two apprentices.^ 

One other class of industrial experiments excited' 
the interest and jealousy of the mother-country.' 
These were the small beginnings of the American' 
iron industry, which was carried on in several of 
the continental colonies during the early years of 
the eighteenth century. Iron was then mined in 
New England, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Vir- 
ginia, and all of these colonies began the rudimentary 
forms of iron manufacture in charcoal furnaces. In 
the Board of Trade reports for 1721 the iron works 
of New England are referred to as furnishing small 
quantities for common use, but English iron was 
said to have a better reputation and to be more 
generally used. In 1732 the Massachusetts colo- 
nists were said by one official to make " all sorts of 
iron-work for shipping"; but the governor, while 

^N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., V., 63, 591-630, 938; N. C. 
Col. Records, III., xv.; Palfrey, New England, IV., 326, 399; 
S George II., chap, xxii.; N. J. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., V., 306. 


admitting that the local iron-works afforded the 
people iron for some common necessaries, asserted 
that British iron was wholly used for the shipping 
and that the colonial product could not supply one- 
twentieth of the local demand. William Byrd, about 
the same time, describes several iron-works in Vir- 
ginia in which the former Governor Spotswood, 
among others, was interested. During the next 
decade New England sent insignificant quantities 
of pig-iron to England; but Pennsylvania, and es- 
pecially the Chesapeake colonies, exported more 

There was a considerable sentiment in England 
in favor of developing the iron resources of the 
colonies; but the more finished products were ob- 
jectionable as likely to come into competition with 
those of the mother-country. In 17 19 it was pro- 
posed in Parliament to prohibit the manufacture 
of iron wares or even of bar-iron. About twenty 
years later there was a lively agitation in favor of 
encouraging the importation of partially worked 
iron from the colonies on the ground that it would 
stimulate the more finished manufactures of the 
mother-country and would also free English mer- 
chants from their dependence on Sweden and Rus- 
sia. The discussion did not take shape in legisla- 

^ Weeden, Econ. and Soc. Hist, of New England, I., 396, II., 
497-500; .v. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., V., 598; Anderson, 
Origin of Commerce, III., 192; Bassett, Writings of William Byrd, 



tion until 1750, when an act was passed allowing 
the free importation into England of colonial pig- 
iron, and, at the port of London, of bar-iron, but 
prohibiting American manufacture beyond that 
stage. Probably the colonial industry was not 
sufficiently advanced to suffer seriously from this 
statutory prohibition ; but it doubtless caused some 

Two kinds of colonial manufacture which were 
thoroughly established and carried far beyond pro- 
vincial limits were the building of ships and the 
distilling of rum, and the chief seat of both was 
New England. New - Englanders had been ship- 
builders almost from the first; but the industry 
assimied much larger proportions during the first 
half of the eighteenth century. The small craft of 
the seventeenth century were gradually replaced 
by larger ones, though even in 1780 a ship of five 
hundred tons was considered unusually large. New 
England ship-building was not confined to a few 
leading ports but spread to nearly all the coast and 
river towns; and Pennsylvania also developed a 
considerable ship-building industry. Both Pennsyl- 
vania and New England built ships not merely for 
their own use, but for sale abroad, in the West Indies 
and in Europe ; hence English jealousies were again 
aroused, and the ship - carpenters of the Thames 

^Anderson, Origin of Commerce, III., 88, 167, 170, 217; 
Weeden, Econ. and Soc. Hist, of New England, II., 683; 23 
George II., chap. xxix. 

VOL. VI. 28 


complained of the New England competition. Rich- 
ard West, the legal adviser of the Board of Trade, 
reported that though their grievance might be well 
founded, "they might as well complain of ship- 
building at Bristol, because the acts of navigation 
recognized colonial ships as English built." The 
Board of Trade apparently sympathized with the 
ship-masters, but nothing was done.^ 

During the same period the manufacture of rum 
first assumed large proportions. The chief seats 
of this industry were Massachusetts and Rhode 
Island, especially Newport, and it was made from 
West Indian molasses. It was not only consumed 
at home, but was regarded as indispensable for 
the fishing fleets, the Indian trade, and the African 

* Weeden, Econ. and Soc. Hist, of New England, I., 366-369, 
II., 573-576; Chalmers, Revolt, II., 33; N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. 
Hist., v., 604; cf. Andrews, Colonial Self -Government (Am. Na- 
tion, v.), chap. xix. 

2 Weeden, Econ. and Soc. Hist, of New England, II., 459, 501- 
503; Anderson, Origin of Commerce, III., 180-182. 



IN the commerce of the provincial era the Indian 
fur trade continued to play an important part. 
In New York, peltry was one of the chief articles of 
export ; and Cadwallader Golden, the historian of the 
Iroquois confederacy, said that in this trade New 
York was the only English colony that could suc- 
cessfully compete with the French. Reference has 
already been made to Burnet's establishment at 
Oswego and his efforts to break up the trade be- 
tween Albany and Montreal. It was found im- 
possible to stop the trade altogether, and a new 
measure was therefore adopted which aimed to dis- 
courage it by imposing higher duties than on the 
direct trade with the western Indians.^ 

A considerable Indian trade was also developed 
on the frontiers, from Pennsylvania southward. The 
fotmder of the Byrd family in Virginia was inter- 
ested in the trade carried on by pack-horse cara- 
vans with the Catawbas, Creeks, and Cherokees of 

^ N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., V., 687, 726-733, 745 et seq., 
781, 818, 820, 824; see above, p. 212. 



the southwest. During the eighteenth century 
there was often sharp rivahry between individual 
colonies for the control of this trade. The Vir- 
ginians, gradually losing ground before the Caro- 
linians, complained of unfair regulations imposed by 
South Carolina, which afterwards had similar com- 
plaints to make of Georgia. In the south as well 
as in the north the international rivalry between 
French and English was also active. The Board of 
Trade complained that the trade which ought to 
be a source of strength to the English interest 
was tainted with so many abuses that it often pro- 
voked the hostility of the Indians. They there- 
fore urged new regulations for Indian affairs. No 
general measures were adopted, however, for many 
years. ^ 

Except for the Indian trade, American commerce, 
whether intercolonial or international, was mainly 
carried on by sea, and in sea-going commerce New 
England easily took the lead. The abundance of 
good harbors on her coasts, the rich resources of- 
fered by the northern coast and deep-sea fisheries, 
and the ready supply of lumber for ship-building had 
all combined to make the New-Englanders a sea- 
going people. 

The prosperity of New England commerce was 
closely related to the development of the fisheries. 

^ Bassett, Writings of William Byrd, chaps, xvii.-xix.; Smith, 
South Carolina, 212-219; -V. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., V., 611, 
626, 627. 


Dtiring the early French wars this interest suffered 
severely, and it was not until the second quarter 
of the eighteenth century that the New-Englanders 
fairly established themselves in the northern fish- 
eries. Then the industry developed rapidly all 
along the north shore, and in 1741 the single port 
of Gloucester had seventy vessels engaged. The 
cod-fisheries were the most important; but there 
was also an interesting development in whaling, from 
the early catch of drift-whales and the small-boat 
fisheries near the coast, to the deep-sea whaling 
which reached its prime by the middle of the eigh- 
teenth century and carried New England seamen 
on perilous voyages to the most remote regions of 
the Atlantic.^ 

The fisheries of New England may fairly be de- 
scribed as the foundation of her international trade ; 
for fish was, on the whole, her steadiest article of ex- 
port. The better grades were shipped to the Cath- 
olic countries of southern Europe and the produce 
of the trade was expended sometimes in the illegal 
importation of European products ; but in the main, 
probably in English manufactures or in wine from 
the Azores or the Canaries, a permissible article of 
direct import under the navigation acts. Other im- 
portant exports for this transatlantic trade were 
limiber and naval stores, though New England her- 
self gradually came to depend for naval stores upon 

* Weeden, Econ. and Soc. Hist, of New England, I., 430-447, 
II.. 595-598. 


the Carolinas. Frequently the voyage to Europe 
resulted in the sale of the ship itself. 

Probably no branch of New England commerce 
has had a more direct and evident influence upon 
her history than the trade with the West Indies. 
Here again the fisheries furnished a large part of 
the material for export, especially the "refuse fish" 
then thought good enough for the West Indian 
slaves. With fish went lumber, horses, provisions, 
and some British manufactures. From the West 
Indies the New-Englanders took in return various 
tropical products, including sugar, and especially 
large quantities of molasses for the distilleries of 
Massachusetts and Rhode Island. This commerce 
was closely connected with the rapid development 
of the African slave-trade; for, as has been seen, 
New England rum was sent to the Guinea coast for 
slaves, and these in turn found their best market 
in the plantation colonies, especially in the West 
Indies. Newport especially profited largely by this 

Philadelphia, the chief commercial port of the 
middle colonies, followed to a limited extent the 
lines of New England commerce, though her ex- 
ports were somewhat different. Grain formed an 
important article of export from the middle colo- 
nies to the West Indies, the Azores, and even 

^ Weeden, Econ. and Soc. Hist, of New England, I., 353 et 
seq., 371-373, II., chaps, xii., xiv.; N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. 
Hist., v., 595, 597. 



to southern Europe. Beef, pork, and lumber were 
also exported, and, as in the case of the New- 
Englanders, the ship itself was sometimes sold. 
Return voyages brought clothing and other manu- 
factures from England; sugar, molasses, and other 
tropical products — often Spanish money from the 
West Indies. So large a share of the latter, how- 
ever, was paid for European goods that little re- 
mained in the colonies. New York's trade was 
similar to that of Philadelphia, though her export 
of peltry was more important and her ship-building 
less so. One other branch of trade in which the 
northern colonies were engaged was that of bring- 
ing logwood from Central America to be re-exported 
to European markets.^ 

There are no accurate statistics as to the trade 
of the continental colonies, but some figures fur- 
nished by the Board of Trade in 1721 will illustrate 
the general situation. The annual exports from 
England to the continental colonies were then 
valued at about ;i£43o,ooo, of which a little over 
two-thirds were British goods and the rest foreign 
articles re-exported. Woollen goods constituted 
roughly one-half of the whole value of British ar- 
ticles exported. Next in importance stood wrought 
iron and nails. The imports from the continental 
colonies were valued, roughly, at £300,000, and of 
this amount about one-half was tobacco. Next in 

1 N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., V., 601, 685; Anderson, Origin 
of Commerce, III., 171. 


order came naval stores, rice, and peltry. More 
than three-fourths of the total English imports from 
the continental colonies came from Virginia, Mary- 
land, and the Carolinas, and a much larger amount 
(more than two-thirds of all the imports from the 
American colonies) came from the British sugar 
islands of the West Indies. Of the English export 
trade a much larger proportion went to the sugar 
islands than to either the northern or the southern 
group of continental colonies. In the aggregate 
trade of England with the continental colonies she 
exported more largely than she imported, this con- 
dition being due to the northern colonies, which sent 
no great staples directly to England and paid for 
their English manufactures indirectly through their 
ship-building and carrying trade and their commerce 
with the West Indies and southern Europe. 

These figures show the greater value of England's 
direct trade with the West Indies as compared with 
that carried on with the northern colonies ; and the 
same fact is emphasized by the statistics of ship- 
ping. The tonnage to the British West Indies was 
more than twice as large as that to New England, 
New York, and Pennsylvania combined, and some- 
what larger than the aggregate for the Chesapeake 
colonies and the Carolinas. These facts explain the 
emphasis given by British colonial administrators 
to West Indian interests. It is to be remembered 
also that the trade of the northern colonies, es- 
pecially that of New England, was carried on largely 




in their own shipping, while that of the south and 
the West Indies was in the hands of British mer- 

Even from the mercantilist point of view there 
were decided advantages in the trade between the 
northern colonies and the West Indies; it supplied 
the sugar islands with provisions and lumber on 
cheaper terms than would otherwise have been pos- 
sible, and it enabled the New-Englanders and Penn- 
sylvanians to buy more freely of English manu- 
factures. After 17 13, however, the British West 
Indian planters grew jealous of the trade between 
their continental countrymen and the French and 
Dutch islands. The French relaxed their old re- 
strictions, and their sugar production developed 
rapidly until it began to displace the British prod- 
uct in European markets. The New - Englanders 
also found that they could buy their sugar and mo- 
lasses more cheaply from the French and Dutch. 
In 1 72 1 the Board of Trade called attention to this 
undesirable form of New England enterprise, and 
in 1 73 1 the sugar-planters and the merchants trad- 
ing to the West Indies petitioned Parliament for 
relief. In the latter year a bill for this purpose 
passed the House of Commons but was dropped in 
the House of Lords. 

During the next two years the question was much 
debated, but the final outcome was the molasses 
act of 1733, imposing prohibitory duties on foreign 
y. Docs, Rel. to Col. Hist, V., 613-619. 


sugar, molasses, and rum imported into the English 
colonies.^ The friends of the bill emphasized the 
value of the sugar colonies as a market for English 
manufactures and for African slaves and the large 
amount of shipping employed in the trade. They 
asserted also that the trade of the continental colo- 
nies was chiefly responsible for the too successful 
competition of the foreign sugar islands in Europe. 
The northern colonies claimed that the British West 
Indies could not meet the whole American demand 
in addition to that of the mother-country, dwelt on 
the importance of their own shipping interests and 
of the rum industry, and insisted that the unfortu- 
nate condition of the British sugar plantations was 
largely due to improvidence and mismanagement. 
Finally, they argued that it was the trade with the 
French islands which enabled them to pay for 
British manufactures. The act was passed, but it 
involved so serious a disturbance of the natural 
course of trade that it was systematically violated.^ 
Of great importance, but extremely difficult to 
estimate even approximately, was the intercolonial 
coasting trade. Thus the middle colonies sent 
bread-stuffs to New England as well as to South 
Carolina. A large part of the coasting trade was 
carried on in New England vessels, which supplied 

^ 6 George II., chap. xiii. 

^ N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., V., 597; Anderson, Origin 
of Commerce, III., 140, 171, 177-182; Beer, Commercial Policy 
of England, chap. vi. For later effects, see Howard, Prelimi- 
naries of the Revolution {Am. Nation, VIII.), chap. iii. 



the southerners not only with their own domestic 
commodities but with the proceeds of the Euro- 
pean and West Indian trades, North Carolina in 
particular being largely dependent upon them for 
contact with the outside world. ^ 

The intercolonial wars gave rise directly or 
indirectly to several abnormal forms of colonial 
enterprise. On the border-line between war and 
commerce, technically legal yet tending always to 
degenerate into distinctly criminal courses, was pri- 
vateering. The privateer had a regular commission 
from his government to prey upon the enemy's 
commerce, thus enabling him to combine patriot- 
ism with private advantage. The peace of Utrecht 
closed for a time the opporttmity for legitimate 
privateering, but it developed again on a large 
scale upon the outbreak of war with Spain in 1739. 
Rhode Island merchants were conspicuous for their 
investments in this form of business.^ 

In time of peace the more reckless privateers- 
men were easily drawn into piracy. Just before 
and after the revolution of 1689 piracy was very 
common, and in many of the colonial seaports was 
looked upon somewhat indulgently by the local 
merchants, who were glad to have the pirate's 
money without inquiring too closely as to its source. 

1 Weeden, Econ. and Soc. Hist, of Neiv England, II., 589-592; 
N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., V., 686; .V. C. Col. Records, III., 

^ Weeden, Econ. and Soc. Hist, of New Engla-nd, I., 337 et seq., 
II., 598 et seq. 


Much was said about the laxity of the proprietary 
governors in this respect, but one of the most no- 
torious offenders was the royal governor Fletcher, 
of New York. To remedy this crying evil the Brit- 
ish piracy act of 1699 was passed, and in the suc- 
ceeding years pirates were severely dealt with in 
several of the colonies. The best-known piratical 
adventurer of this period was Captain William 
Kidd, who, under the auspices of Lord Bellomont, 
governor of New York, and the great Lord Chan- 
cellor Somers, set out to capture pirates, but ended 
by turning pirate, or half pirate, himself, and thus 
brought scandal on his distinguished patrons. He 
was finally arrested by order of Bellomont, sent to 
England for trial, and executed there, upon some- 
what inadequate evidence, for the crimes of piracy 
and murder. In 1704 some pirates were executed 
in Boston, affording a grewsome entertainment to 
Samuel Sewall and his fellow-citizens.* 

The climax of American piracy was reached at 
the close of the War of the Spanish Succession, 
when the forces of the pirates were swelled by ac- 
cessions from former privateersmen. Their chief 
haunts during this period were the Bahamas, which 
had for a time fallen into a state of anarchy; and 
the convenient inlets and rivers of North Carolina. 

^ Diet, of National Biography, art. Kidd; Cobbett, Parlia- 
mentary History, V., 1276; N. Y. Does. Rel. to Col. Hist., IV., 
275, 454, 470, 551, 583, 815; Weeden, Econ. and Soc. Hist, of 
New England, L, 340 et seq., 423, II., 559-565; Sewall, Diary, 
II., 108-110. 



Two of these maritime desperadoes who stand 
out above their fellows are Teach, or Thatch, some- 
times known as Blackbeard, and Steve Bonnet, 
formerly a respectable inhabitant of Barbadoes. 
The leading proprietary officials of North Carolina 
were strongly suspected of complicity with the pi- 
rates, and finally, after a succession of outrages all 
along the coast, the neighboring governments were 
forced to act. In 17 18, Governor Spotswood, of 
Virginia, sent an expedition into North Carolina, 
which in a pitched battle killed Thatch and some 
of his accomplices. In the same year the South 
Carolina government sent a similar expedition to 
the Cape Fear River, where after another desperate 
encounter Bonnet and his crew were captured. 
Bonnet himself and most of his followers were soon 
after tried and executed. Before the year ended, 
another engagement off Charleston resulted in the 
capture and execution of several other desperadoes. 
These and other vigorous measures soon made pi- 
racy a more exceptional feature of maritime life.^ 

The extent of the colonial trade carried on in 
violation of the navigation acts has been and still 
is a matter of controversy. Some provisions of 
these acts were undoubtedly well observed, as, for 
instance, the rule limiting trade with the colonies 
to English (including colonial-built) vessels. It is 
also generally agreed that the molasses act, which 

^Hughson, Carolina Pirates (Johns Hopkins University Studies, 
XII., Nos. 5-7). 


attempted to break up colonial trade with the for- 
eign sugar colonies, was systematically violated. 
Probably the export of enumerated articles was in 
the main confined to England, as the law provided, 
though there was said to be some illicit exportation 
of Virginia and North Carolina tobacco from the ill- 
guarded coasts of the latter colony, with the con- 
venient aid of New England traders. The greatest 
doubt exists as to the enforcement of the clause re- 
quiring that all European goods should be imported 
by way of England. During the two decades fol- 
lowing the revolution of 1689 the colonists were 
charged with carrying on a large amount of this 
illegal import trade ; but something must undoubt- 
edly be allowed for the zealous efforts of royal 
agents to discredit the chartered governments, and 
something, perhaps, for friction in the inauguration 
of a new system. 

After the peace of Utrecht there appear from 
time to time references to illegal imports from 
Europe. Thus Thomas Amory, of Boston, wrote to 
one of his correspondents in 172 1, "If you have a 
Captain you can confide in, you will find it easy to 
import all kinds of goods from the Streights, France, 
and Spain, although prohibited." The famous 
Peter Faneuil was also involved in the illicit trade 
in European goods, and disposed to resent any ex- 
cessive strictness on the part of admiralty judges. 
A fair general conclusion would seem to be that 
though there was much illegal trading, the volimie 



of this illicit trade, with the exception of that car- 
ried on with the West Indies in defiance of the 
molasses act, was not relatively large, and that the 
eighteenth - century colonists drew the great bulk 
of their European goods from English ports.* 

One of the most perplexing of colonial problems 
was that of securing an adequate medium of ex- 
change. At the close of the seventeenth century 
the chief metallic money of the colonists was the 
Spanish silver piece-of -eight. This Spanish silver 
was not only limited in quantity, but it was subject 
to a confusing variety of ratings in the different 
colonies, and the efforts of the home government 
to regulate it were not successful. Nearly all the 
colonies during this century depended largely upon 
various systems of barter or payment in kind. 
Thus Virginia had her tobacco currency and Mas- 
sachusetts her "country pay," or payment in com- 
modities at certain fixed values. In North Caro- 
lina this primitive barter system continued until 
the middle of the eighteenth century.^ 

The want of a satisfactory circulating medium 
was aggravated by the financial difficulties of the 
colonial governments. In the colonies as in Eng- 
land the wars with France subjected the financial 

* Ashley, Surveys Historic and Economic, 336-360; Beer, 
Commercial Policy of England, esp. 134-143; Weeden, Econ. and 
Soc. Hist, of New England, II., 556-558, 611 et seq.; N. C. Col. 
Records, III., xvi. 

2 Bullock, Monetary Hist, of the U. 5., chaps, ii., iii. ; see above, 
P- 39. 


resources of the state to an unusual strain, which 
they could hardly meet by the immediate imposi- 
tion of taxes. From one or the other of these 
motives, or both of them together, paper money 
was issued by all of the colonies. 

The first bills were issued by Massachusetts to 
meet the expenses of Phips's disastrous expedition 
against Quebec in 1690. Though declared "in 
value equal to money," they depreciated rapidly; 
but during the next twenty years the issues were 
kept within moderate limits, and the notes were 
brought for a considerable time to par with coin. 
The first serious tendency to inflation appeared near 
the close of Queen Anne's War. The volume of 
bills was then swelled by numerous emissions, while 
credit was also impaired by postponing the taxes 
necessary for their redemption. 

All the New England colonies were led to the 
same course by financial necessities and the real or 
supposed need of a circulating medium. Efforts to 
check the depreciation by legal-tender legislation 
and other forcing measures all failed. New issues 
were made to replace the old; but the "new tenor" 
bills only added new rates of depreciation, bringing 
great hardships not only to the creditor class, but 
to all recipients of fixed incomes. In 1749 Massa- 
chusetts was able to restore her currency to a specie 
basis ; but her neighbors continued to suffer from a 
depreciated currency, Rhode Island having a par- 
ticularly bad record in this respect. 



During Queen Anne's War, and as a direct result 
of the financial burdens imposed by the French and 
Indian wars, paper currencies were issued by New 
York and both the Carolinas. They were largely 
increased afterwards, with the same results of ex- 
treme depreciation, which could not be effectively 
checked by legal tender and forcing clauses. Vir- 
ginia was much more conservative during this 
period, issuing no bills until 1755. Maryland and 
the middle colonies, except New York, were com- 
paratively prudent also, though the Pennsylvanians 
were thoroughly convinced of the desirability of 
paper money, and their most eminent citizen, Ben- 
jamin Franklin, early distinguished himself in its 

One of the worst phases of the paper-money move- 
ment was the "bank," a natural product of a time 
when the nature and limitations of credit were not 
clearly understood, a period marked by such dis- 
astrous experiments as the French "Mississippi 
Scheme'' and the "South Sea Bubble," in which 
many prominent English politicians were involved. 
A colonial "bank" has been described as "simply 
a batch of paper money " lent out either by the 
government or by a private company. In either 
case there was little or no specie value behind the 

* Bullock, Monetary Hist, of the U. S., 29-59, 125-156, 207- 
245; Weeden, Econ. and Soc. Hist, of New England, I., 319- 
330; 379~387, II., 473-486; Smith, South Carolina, 229-275; 
Dewey, Financial Hist, of the U. 5., chap. i. 

VOL. VI. — 21 


notes, and usually very poor security for the pay- 
ment either of the principal or of the interest 
pledged. Such "banks" were undertaken by colo- 
nial governments in New England and elsewhere, 
often with disastrous results. The best-known of 
these schemes was the Massachusetts "Land Bank" 
of 1740, a private institution which, however, be- 
came a conspicuous factor in provincial politics. 
Only an insignificant part of the stock of this bank 
was subscribed in cash, and for the rest commodi- 
ties of various kinds might be accepted. The bank 
then issued notes which added perceptibly to the 
confusion of currency in the province, until Par- 
liament put a stop to its operations.^ 

Throughout the eighteenth century the British 
government showed its hostility to paper-money 
issues and tried to check them in various ways, 
especially by instructions to the governors. These 
instructions were, however, frequently evaded or 
disobeyed; for governors could be brought to terms 
by the assemblies refusing to vote salaries or with- 
holding money for urgent public needs. The colo- 
nists themselves were divided on the question, as, 
for instance, in South Carolina, where there was 
a sharp contest between the planters who wished a 
paper currency and the merchants who opposed it. 
In a similar division in Massachusetts the con- 

* Bullock, Monetary Hist, of the U. S., 29-32; Davis, Currency 
and Banking in Mass. Bay, esp. pt. ii., chaps, v.-ix.; 14 George 
II., chap. XXX vii. 




servative business interests finally secured the with- 
drawal of the paper altogether. Parliament also 
interested itself in the question, and, after some 
previous inquiries and resolutions, passed in 1751 
an act prohibiting the issue of paper money in New 
England, except in certain clearly defined cases. 
This legislation was not extended to the other colo- 
nies until 1764.^ 

Notwithstanding unfortunate experiments of va- 
rious kinds, the colonies were on the whole pros- 
perous. Prosperity was probably more generally 
diffused in New England and Pennsylvania than 
elsewhere ; but in every colony there were many 
persons who could, according to the standards of the 
time, command the material comforts and luxuries 
of life. In the south the most substantial wealth 
was probably to be found in Charleston ; but a con- 
siderable nimiber of the Virginian planters, though 
often land-poor and in debt, were able to secure for 
themselves luxuries of food, clothing, and furniture. 
Such a man, for instance, was William Byrd. In 
New England there were prosperous merchants, such 
as Peter Faneuil, or Thomas Amory, who, after a 
broad experience in various parts of the world, set- 
tled in Boston in 17 19 and wrote of his new home, 
''People live handsomely here and without fear of 
anything." Philadelphia and New York also gave 
to intelligent observers like the Swedish Kalm and 
the English Bumaby the impression of comfort and 
^ 24 George II., chap, liii.; 4 George III., chap, xxxiv. 


prosperity. Bumaby, who visited Philadelphia in 
1760, spoke of it with admiration, observing its sub- 
stantial public buildings and its handsome streets. 
A few years earlier Kalm wrote rather extravagant- 
ly that *'its fine appearance, good regulations, agree- 
able situation, natural advantages, trade, riches 
and power, are by no means inferior to those of any, 
even of the most ancient, towns in Europe.*' ^ 

* Weeden, Econ. and Soc. Hist, of New England, II., 565 et 
seq., 624 et seq.; Jones, Present State of Virginia {ed. oi 1865), 
28-31; Pinkerton, Voyages, XIII., 396, 456, 728, 736-739; Hart, 
Contemporaries, II. ,§§23, 28. 



DURING the seventeenth century the pressure 
of material needs and the scattered character 
of the settlements prevented much development in 
the finer elements of civilization; and though New 
England showed a strongly idealistic spirit, her 
culture was narrowed by theological partisanship. 

At the close of the century these unfavorable con- 
ditions were gradually changing and there began a 
period of substantial progress in civilization. The 
older communities were emerging from the hard- 
ships of the pioneer period; they were coming to 
have leisure and taste for intellectual pursuits, and 
becoming ambitious of larger opportunities for their 
children. The improved communications between 
different colonies were giving to their higher life 
some real community of interest, by weakening 
local and sectarian prejudices. The development of 
mercantile interests also helped to bring the back- 
ward or one-sided life of the colonies into vital 
contact with the main currents of European prog- 
ress. In Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and 



Charleston there were many men who had regular 
business connections with the Old World and from 
time to time found it necessary to cross the ocean. 

Much credit must also be given to the royal gov- 
ernors. Francis Nicholson, for instance, while gov- 
ernor in Virginia, Maryland, and South Carolina, 
gave special attention to education, urging it upon 
the attention of his colonial assembly, and himself 
making contributions to the cause. When Yale 
College was founded, this zealous Anglican showed a 
surprising breadth of interest by contributing to its 
stock of books. So, too, his successor in Virginia, 
Governor Spotswood, was one of the chief patrons 
of William and Mary College.^ 

In New York and Massachusetts, Governor Bur- " 
net left an enviable reputation as a man of scholarly 
and literary tastes. In New York he had among 
his political advisers a rather unusual group of in- 
tellectual men, and during his residence in ]\Iassa- 
chusetts he was understood to be a contributor of 
essays to the New England Weekly Journal, Gov- 
ernor Dudley, whatever his faults may have been, 
was a "gentleman and a scholar" who kept him- 
self in sympathy with the literary and scientific 
activities of his time.^ 

The Anglican church also exerted an important 
civilizing influence. The first two commissaries of 

* Mereness, Maryland, 137; McCrady, South Carolina under 
Royal Government, 482; Trumbull, Connecticiit, II., 30. 
2 Winsor, Memorial Hist, of Boston, II., 400, 435. 



the bishop of London, Blair in Virginia and Bray- 
in Maryland, are almost as well known for their 
educational as for their religious activities. The 
Venerable Society emphasized the educational side 
of its missionary work, and in many southern 
parishes the Anglican lay reader was the first 
teacher. In New England also the Anglican clergy 
were an important intellectual force, helping their 
Puritan neighbors by the stimulus of competition 
and preparing the way for a more tolerant prac- 

Perhaps the finest gift of the English church to 
the life of New England was the mission of George 
Berkeley, who lived from 1729 to 1731 in the vicin- 
ity of Newport. Dean Berkeley was the highest 
ecclesiastical dignitary who had hitherto visited the 
colonies, and was known already as a brilliant 
scholar. As the founders of Massachusetts had 
hoped to build up a "bulwark against Anti-Christ," 
so Berkeley saw in the fresh and youthful life of the 
New World a refuge for Christian and Protestant 
civilization. He desired to establish an American 
college under Anglican auspices, but the project 
was not supported by the English government, and 
he returned to England much disappointed. 

Yet the time which Berkeley spent in Newport 
was not wasted. In a kindly way he used his in- 
fluence against the sectarian spirit of New England 

^ Weeks, in U. S. Commissioner of Education, Report, 1897, 
II., 1380-1383. 


Puritanism, and his sympathies were not confined 
within his own communion. After his return to 
England he gave generously to Yale College, both 
in books and in land, and he also contributed some 
books to the library of Harvard College. Through 
the stimulus of his intercourse and example he 
strengthened the intellectual life of the little colony 
where he lived, and his influence can be traced also 
in the founding of King's College in New York, 
1754, under the leadership of his friend and disciple, 
Samuel Johnson.^ 

During this period there was substantial progress 
in the founding and development of educational 
institutions, and in the south the most important 
event was the founding of William and Mary Col- 
lege. Some subscriptions for such a college had been 
taken in Berkeley's administration; but little was 
accomplished until 1691, when the assembly sent 
commissary Blair to England with instructions to 
secure a charter. Blair appealed successfully to the 
queen and the king, and in 1693 came back with a 
royal charter, together with a substantial endow- 
ment from the royal revenues. From time to time 
this endowment was increased by grants from the 
assembly and by private gifts. ^ 

'Tyler, in Perry, American Episcopal Church, I,, 519-540; 
Weeden, Econ. and Soc. Hist, of New England, II., 546-548; 
Fraser, Life and Letters of Berkeley, II., chaps, iv., v, 

Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1689-1692, pp. 300, 426, 452, 575, 
693; Adams, College of William and Mary, 11-17; Letters of 
Blair, in Perry, American Episcopal Church, I., 116-119, 

1729] CULTURE 305 

William and Mary College was thus founded un- 
der distinctly iVnglican auspices and its close con- 
nection with the church continued throughout the 
colonial era. Commissary Blair himself was its 
first president, holding the office for fifty years ; its 
professors were generally clergymen in charge of 
neighboring parishes, and emphasis was constantly 
laid upon training for the service of the Anglican 
church. About the college there was subsequently 
built the capital town of Williamsburg, which, with 
its double attraction of the college and the seat of 
government, became a social centre of some impor- 
tance. The college itself passed through many vi- 
cissitudes; it was burned down in 1705, and, though 
soon restored, it was described about 1724 by one 
of its professors, the Reverend Hugh Jones, as " a 
college without a chapel, without a scholarship, and 
without a statute" having " a library without books 
comparatively speaking ; and a president without a 
fixed salary till of late." In 1729 the faculty con- 
sisted of President Blair and six professors, includ- 
ing two in theology and two in the school of phi- 
losophy. Though its influence in the colonial era 
was hardly comparable with that of Har\'ard, in 
Massachusetts, it trained a large proportion of the 
men who were to play conspicuous parts in the 
struggle for independence.^ 

* Adams, College of William and Mary, 17-27; Jones, Present 
State of Virginia (ed. of 1865), 45, 83 et seq.; William and Mary 
Quarterly, VI., 176, 177. 


William and Mary was the only college in the 
south during the colonial era, and the demand for 
higher education had to be met by sending young 
men out of the colony either to England, or, occa- 
sionally, to one of the northern colleges. In the 
richer families an education over-seas was, there- 
fore, more common than in New England. 

In secondary and elementary education the south 
made some progress during the first half of the 
eighteenth century. A "grammar" school at Will- 
iamsburg gave preliminary training in Greek and 
Latin. In 1695 the Maryland assembly passed an 
act for one or more free schools in which Latin and 
Greek might be taught, but only one was established 
under its provisions, the King William's School at 
Annapolis. In 1763, Governor Sharpe declared that 
there was not in Maryland even one good grammar- 

South Carolina during the earlier years of the 
eighteenth century passed a number of laws for the 
encouragement of education. In 17 11 the colony, 
with the co-operation of the Society for the Propa- 
gation of the Gospel, established a school in Charles- 
ton ; and a few were established elsewhere through 
bequests by individuals or through the efforts of 

North Carolina was probably the most backward 

* Mereness, Maryland, 137-145. 

2 McCrady, South Carolina under Proprietary Government , 510, 
700; South Carolina under Royal Government, chap. xxv. 

1736] CULTURE 307 

of all the colonies, but even here a few schools were 
established during the first two decades of the 
eighteenth century, chiefly through the efforts of 
the Anglican church. The net results, however, 
were small, and in 1736 Governor Johnston reproach- 
ed the assembly with having "never yet taken the 
least care to erect one school, which deserves the 
name in this extended country." ^ 

None of the southern colonies had a genuine pub- 
lic-school system, but the deficiency in organized 
education was partly made up by private instruc- 
tion, which, in South Carolina especially, employed 
a considerable number of persons during the latter 
part of the provincial era. In that colony also some- 
thing was done for the poor by the rich through the 
institution of schools with free scholarships.^ 

Eight years after the incorporation of William and 
Mary College another institution for higher educa- 
tion was incorporated in Connecticut. Yale College, 
like its predecessors in Massachusetts and Virginia, 
was founded under strongly clerical influences, and 
was intended to be largely, though not exclusively, 
a training school for ministers. ^lost of its pro- 
moters were Harvard graduates ; but in Connecticut 
there was a demand for a college nearer home, while 
in Massachusetts many men felt that Har\^ard was 
drifting away from the orthodox standards. The 

^ Weeks, in U. S. Commissioner of Education, Report, 1897, 
II., 1380-1383; -V. C. Col. Records, IV., 227. 

2 McCrady, South Carolina ti7ider Royal Government, chap. xxv. 


act of 1 701 incorporating the new college provided 
for a board of trustees composed exclusively of 

For the next seventeen years the college led an 
extremely precarious existence. A part of the in- 
struction was given at Saybrook, but some of the 
students were provided for at various other places. 
Local jealousies made it difficult to fix a permanent 
seat for the college ; but in 1 7 1 6 the trustees agreed 
upon New Haven, and their decision was sanctioned 
by the general court. There was still some resist- 
ance, and in 1 7 18 rival commencements were held at 
Weathersfield and New Haven ; but by concessions to 
the disappointed towns the breach was soon healed. 
Meanwhile, donations were coming in from various 
quarters. Jeremiah Dummer collected a number of 
books for the college from friends in England; but 
the most important benefactor was Elihu Yale, 
a native of Boston, who, after receiving his educa- 
tion in England, became a prosperous East Indian 
merchant, and governor for the East India Company 
at Madras. In 17 18, at the first New Haven com- 
mencement, the school was christened by its new 
name of Yale College, and in 17 19 Timothy Cutler 
was made resident rector or president of the college.^ 

The college seemed at last to be definitely estab- 
lished ; but it soon sustained a severe shock through 
the conversion of President Cutler to the principle 

^Papers by Dexter and Baldwin, in New Haven Colony Hist. 
Soc, Papers, III., 1-32, 405-442. ' Dexter, Ibid., 227-248. 




of episcopal ordination. The trustees, however, 
proved equal to the occasion; Cutler was promptly 
deposed and a drastic rule was adopted excluding 
from the government of the college any one who 
might be tainted with " Arminian and Prelatical Cor- 
ruptions." Yale College was thus more carefully 
forearmed against heresy than Har\^ard had ever 
been. Cutler's successors, Williams and Clap, both 
proved efficient administrators and safe theologians, 
and the college became prosperous and influential. 
Yale was the academic headquarters of thorough- 
going Calvinism both for New England and the 
middle colonies; and it trained the two great Cal- 
vinistic teachers of the period, Jonathan Dickinson 
and Jonathan Edwards, who became later the first 
two presidents of the college of New Jersey. Some 
of the secular leaders of the middle colonies were 
also educated at Yale, including such New-Yorkers 
as William Smith the historian and William Liv- 
ingston the politician and later revolutionary 

The enthusiasm of Cotton Mather and his friends 
for Yale was largely due to their consciousness of 
waning influence at Harvard, where there had long 
been a vigorous contest between liberals and con- 
servatives for the control of the college. The 
Mathers desired a new charter in place of the old 
one of 1650, which should secure the doctrinal 

^Trumbull, Hist, of Connecticut, II., 22 et seq.; Clap, Annals 
or History of Yale College; Talcott Papers, I., 6, 58. 


orthodoxy of the college. No act, however, which 
the colonists could agree upon, was acceptable to 
the crown or its agent the governor; until in 1707 
the difficulty was solved by a short resolution de- 
claring the old charter to be still in force. 

The more liberal element in the church was 
gradually increasing its representation in the cor- 
poration, and in 1707, with the help of Governor 
Dudley, they elected John Leverett as president. 
In 1 7 17 the Mather influence suffered another se- 
vere check when two more ministers of the liberal 
school were elected to the corporation. In 1722 
the conservatives were strong enough to get through 
the general court a vote which, by adding the resi- 
dent tutors to the corporation, would have elimi- 
nated the objectionable new members, but this 
project was blocked by Governor Shute.* 

These controversies between ecclesiastical fac- 
tions, though petty enough in themselves, are his- 
torically significant because they involve the impor- 
tant issue of academic freedom against ecclesiastical 
control ; and because the victory of the liberals made 
the college for the future one of the strong human- 
izing forces in New England life. In other ways, 
also, this was a period of educational progress for 
Harvard. In 172 1 and 1727 the London merchant, 
Thomas Hollis, established the first two professor- 
ships at the college, one in divinity and one in nat- 

* Quincy, Harvard University, I., chaps, iv.-xiv., passim, and 


ural philosophy. The latter chair was assigned, in 
1738, to John Winthrop, a young graduate who dur- 
ing forty years of service was to be one of the best 
representatives in America of the scholar's life.^ 

Educational progress came more slowly in the 
middle colonies. The Quakers of Pennsylvania be- 
lieved thoroughly in elementary education, but they 
cared little for the higher learning, partly because 
they had no clergy requiring special teaching. The 
first college in Pennsylvania was not founded until 
1755, and then the chief mover in the enterprise 
was Benjamin Franklin, a transplanted New-Eng- 
lander. Perhaps the most important Pennsylvania 
school founded before that time was the one es- 
tablished at Philadelphia in 1697 and subsequently 
known as the William Penn Charter School.^ 

In New York the presence of two distinct nation- 
alities interfered seriously with educational prog- 
ress, and, though there were schools in the province, 
they had a poor reputation. William Smith the 
historian, himself a native and prominent citizen of 
the province, wrote in 1756 that the schools were 
"in the lowest order." ^ 

In New Jersey a law authorizing towns to levy 
taxes for the support of public schools was passed 
as early as 1693, and during the next half -century 

^ Qmncy , Harvard University, I., 232-241, 398, 399, II., 25-27. 
' Cf . Sharpless, Quaker Experiment in Government (ed. of 1902) , 
I., 35 et seq. 

3 Smith, Hist, of New York (ed. of 1756), 229. 


a considerable number of schools were actually es- 
tablished. The educational leadership in New Jer- 
sey came largely from the Presbyterian church, 
which had gathered to itself not merely the original 
Presbyterians of Scotch-Irish stock, but their fel- 
low-Calvinists from New England, Holland, and 
Germany. Largely through the efforts of Pres- 
byterian ministers, the first charter of the College 
of New Jersey was granted in 1746, three of the four 
principal ministerial promoters being graduates of 
Yale, and one of Harvard. A year later, another 
Harvard graduate, Jonathan Belcher, became gov- 
ernor of New Jersey, and through his efforts a new 
charter was granted, which placed the college upon 
a secure foundation. Thus the higher education of 
the middle colonies was in large measure the prod- 
uct of New England training.* No other college 
was founded in the middle region before 1750, but 
the subject was already attracting attention, and 
the next decade saw the founding of Columbia 
College under Anglican auspices at New York, and of 
the University of Pennsylvania at Philadelphia, the 
freest from ecclesiastical control of all the colonial 

An important evidence of a developing civiliza- 
tion is the accumulation of private and public 
libraries. In the endowment of the early American 
colleges, notably of Harvard and Yale, donations 

* De Witt, in Murray, Hist, of Education in N. J. (U. S. 
Bureau of Education, No. i.), chap, ix. 

1746] CULTURE 


of books had played an important part. Gradual- 
ly there developed in New England such consider- 
able private collections as those of the Mathers and 
Thomas Prince. In the south the best -known 
private collection was that of Westover, in Vir- 
ginia, which, when sold in 1778, numbered nearly 
four thousand volumes, collected largely by William 
Byrd, the contemporary of Governor Spotswood, 
and showing broad literary and scientific interests.^ 
Towards the close of the seventeenth century. 
Reverend Thomas Bray collected and sent to various 
places in America small libraries, made up largely, 
but not wholly, of theological literature. Most of 
these were in Maryland, but one of the most im- 
portant was in Charleston, South Carolina, and there 
were three in New England. About 1729 the So- 
ciety for the Propagation of the Gospel sent to 
New York a library of one thousand volumes for 
the use of the neighboring clergy. Generally speak- 
ing, little was done by the colonists to develop these 
collections, but in 1698 the South Carolina assem- 
bly appropriated money for the support of the li- 
brary in Charleston, for which the distinction has 
been claimed of being the first public library in 

Of more importance as an indication of colonial 

* Bassett, Writings of William Byrd, p. Ixxxii., and App. 

2 Steiner, in Am. Hist. Review, II., 59-75; Smith, New York 
(ed. of 1792), 213; McCrady, South Carolina under Royal Gov- 
ernment, 508. 

VOL. VI. 22 


initiative in this field was the public subscription 
library in Philadelphia founded by Franklin in 
1 73 1 and incorporated in 1742. Franklin tells us 
that "The institution soon manifested its utility, 
was imitated by other towns, and in other prov- 
inces . . . reading became fashionable; and our 
people, having no pub lick amusements to divert 
their attention from study, became better acquaint- 
ed with books, and in a few years were observ'd 
by strangers to be better instructed and more in- 
telligent than people of the same rank generally 
are in other countries." A somewhat similar move- 
ment resulted in the formation of the Charleston 
Library Society in 1743.* 

The development of journalism is one of the most 
important social facts of this provincial era. At 
the close of the seventeenth century there was not 
a single newspaper published in North America, and 
even after the founding of the Boston News Letter, 
in 1704, fifteen years passed before it had any rival 
on the continent. During the next two decades, 
however, newspapers were established in Rhode 
Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Vir- 
ginia, and South Carolina. These were generally 
weekly publications, very imperfect in their reports 
of American news, giving considerable space to Eng- 
lish court life and parliamentary procedure and to 
scientific or literary essays. Though often cautious 

* Franklin, Works (Bigelow's ed.) , I., 167-170; McCrady, South 
Carolina under Royal Government, 510-512. 




about the expression of editorial views, they be- 
came important agencies of political controversy, 
and furnish to-day valuable sources of information 
upon numerous aspects of provincial politics.^ 

During the first half of the eighteenth century 
Boston was the chief journalistic centre in the colo- 
nies, and in 1735 there were five newspapers simul- 
taneously published in the town. There Franklin 
began his career as printer and journalist by assist- 
ing his brother in the publication of the New Eng- 
land Courant. Papers of a much higher order were 
the New England Weekly Journal and the Weekly 
Rehearsal, afterwards continued in the Boston Weekly 
Post, which had distinctly literary aims and received 
contributions from leading ministers and laymen.^ 

During the seventeenth century the clergy were 
almost the only educated professional men in 
America. Lawyers were few and were regarded 
with suspicion, and there were few thoroughly train- 
ed physicians. During the next half -century there 
was a decided advance in all of these professions. 
The development of the Anglican church brought 
into the middle and southern colonies a few clergy- 
men like Blair in Virginia and Garden in South 
Carolina, who had shared in the best educational 
opportunities of their time and yet were ready to 
spend their lives in the New World. 

^Thomas, Hist, of Printing (Am. Antiq, Soc, Collections, VI.), 
II., 7-204, passim. 

2 Goddard, in Winsor, Memorial Hist, of Boston, II., chap, xv. 


In New England the clergy lost ground relative- 
ly, but their best men began to show a broader 
spirit. At the beginning of this era the represent- 
ative men were the two Mathers, especially Cotton 
Mather, who, though a man of great learning, felt 
it to be one of his chief functions to check the rising 
tide of innovation. With all his voluminous pub- 
lications, he lacked the scholar's critical instinct. 
The men who succeeded him differed from him not 
so much in their formal statements of doctrine as in 
their more tolerant temper. Such a man was Ben- 
jamin Colman, one of the liberals whose influence in 
Harvard College was so much dreaded by Cotton 
Mather. "There are some practices and princi- 
ples," he said, "that look Catholic, which though I 
cannot reason myself into, yet I bear a secret rev- 
erence to in others, and dare not for the world speak 
a word against. Their souls look enlarged to me; 
and mine does so the more to myself, for not daring 
to judge them." Yet Colman had misgivings about 
Yale College accepting Berkeley's generous gift of 

The most scholarly Puritan minister of the next 
generation was Thomas Prince, a graduate of Har- 
vard in 1707, and for forty years pastor of the South 
Church in Boston. Prince found time to build up 
a large library and to write his scholarly though 
fragmentary Chronological History of New England. 

^ Tyler, Hist, of Ant. Literature (ed. of 1879), II., 1 71-175; Tyler, 
in Perry, American Episcopal Church, I., 537. 



In his dedication he enunciated principles of 
scholarship strikingly different from those of the 
Magnalia Christi. "I would not," he said, "take 
the least iota upon trust, if possible," and " I cite 
my vouchers to every passage." * 

The progress of the medical profession was com- 
paratively slow. One of the best-known and in some 
respects most intelligent of American physicians dur- 
ing this period was William Douglass, the author of 
an entertaining but not quite trustworthy historical 
and descriptive account of the colonies. Strangely 
enough, the sceptical Douglass opposed inoculation 
as a protection against small -pox, while Cotton 
Mather defended it. William Smith gave a gloomy 
view of physicians in New York about the middle 
of the eighteenth century, declaring that there were 
few really skilful ones, while " quacks abound like 
locusts in Egypt." South Carolina had a few physi- 
cians who showed not only practical skill but some 
capacity for scientific research.^ 

At the beginning of the eighteenth century law- 
yers were so few that even the most important 
judicial positions were often filled by men with- 
out specific legal training. This was true in the 
southern and middle colonies as well as in New 
England. In South Carolina, for instance, the first 
professional lawyer of whom there seems to be any 

• Quoted in Tyler, Hist, of Am. Literature, II., 145 et seq. 
' Smith, New York (ed. of 1792), 230; McCrady, South Caro- 
lina under Royal Government, chap. xxii. 


definite record was Nicholas Trott, who came to the 
province in 1698. 

During the next fifty years there was a steadily 
increasing number of trained lawyers, many of 
whom, especially in the southern and middle colo- 
nies, had learned their profession in England. The 
political leadership of the law3'ers ma}^ be illus- 
trated by such names as those of Charles Pinckney 
in South Carolina, Daniel Dulany the elder, in 
i\Iaryland, and Andrew Hamilton in Pennsylvania, 
all professional lawyers and all leaders in their re- 
spective assemblies. Even ]\Iassachusetts, where 
the common-law traditions were weakest, was pro- 
ducing some strong lawyers; among them John 
Read, the leader among his contemporaries in the 
profession; Paul Dudley, a student at the Temple 
in London and afterwards attorney - general and 
chief -justice of his native province; and Jeremiah 
Gridley, who seems to have been a sort of mentor 
for the younger lawyers of the revolutionary era.^ 

There are many evidences of increased refinement 
and of genuine intellectual interests. It has been 
said that the New-Englanders of the early eighteenth 
century show little appreciation of the contemporary 
literary movement in England; and it is true, for 
instance, that the Harvard College library contained 
few of the memorable books of the age of Anne. 
Nevertheless, Franklin while a boy in Boston un- 
dertook to form his style on the Spectator, and the 

^Washburn, Judicial Hist, of Mass., 207-209, 211, 283-287. 




newspaper essays of the period show clearly the 
influence of Addison and Steele.^ 

A wide-spread interest in natural science corre- 
sponded to the contemporary tendency of English 
thought ; even Cotton ^^lather was interested in these 
studies, as were his contemporaries Joseph and Paul 
Dudley. Many Americans of that time were mem- 
bers of the Royal Society of London or contributors 
to its transactions, including the Winthrops and 
Paul Dudley in Massachusetts, William Byrd in 
Virginia, and the physician Lining of South Car- 
olina. In Philadelphia the Quaker John Bartram 
won a European reputation as a naturalist; and 
there Franklin, in 1743, issued his appeal for the 
formation of an American philosophical society to 
stimulate and organize research.^ 

In some of the provincial towns there were con- 
siderable groups of cultivated people. With in- 
creasing wealth came a development of the aesthetic 
side of Hfe, especially in domestic architecture and 
the furnishing of the house. The artist Smibert, 
who came to New England with Berkeley, left some 
portraits of representative provincial personages, 
which, like the later ones by Copley, indicate refined 
and comfortable standards of life. 

Hugh Jones thought that while his Virginian 
friends were not much disposed to dive into books," 

1 Franklin. Works (Bigelovr's ed.). I., 47; Goddard, in TVinsor, 
MeiHorial Hist, of Boston, II.. chap. xv. 
'Franklin, Works (Bigelovr's ed.), I., 480. 


their " quick apprehension gave them a Sufficien- 
cy of Knowledge and Fluency of Tongue." During 
the second quarter of the eighteenth century the 
genteel public of Charleston was listening to lectures 
on natural science, paying good prices at the thea- 
tre to see such plays as Addison's tragedy of " Cato," 
and observing St. Cecilia's day by a concert of vo- 
cal and instrumental music. William Smith, writ- 
ing of New York, gives the impression, confirmed 
by later writers, of a community which had some 
of the social graces, but was not very intellectual.^ 

Boston was thought by the Anglican clergyman, 
Bumaby, in 1760, to be "undeniably forwarder in 
the arts" than either Pennsylvania or New York. 
He considered their public buildings "more ele- 
gant" and observed " a more general turn for music, 
painting, and the belles lettres." The strict obser- 
vance of Sunday was still a subject of comment by 
visitors, and the theatre was under the ban, but 
otherwise the Puritan discipline was much relaxed. 
Smith thought his own people of New York " not so 
gay as our neighbors at Boston," and in 1740 the 
Boston ladies were reported as indulging "every 
little piece of gentility to the height of the mode."^ 

In Boston and New York, as well as in Annapolis, 

^ Jones, Present State of Virginia (ed. of 1865), 44; McCrady, 
South Carolina under Royal Government, 492, 526-528. 

2 Smith, New York (ed. of 1792), 229; Burnaby, Travels 
(Pinkerton, Voyages, XIII.), 730, 738, 747; cf. Hart, Contem- 
poraries, II., chaps, xii., xiv.; Winsor, Memorial Hist, of Boston, 
II., chap. xvi. 




Williamsburg, and Charleston, English models were 
closely followed in dress and social practices, though 
it was observed in New York that the London fash- 
ions were adopted in America just as they were go- 
ing out of use in England.^ 

Provincial society was growing richer, freer, more 
cosmopolitan in the eighteenth century, but it was 
felt by many to be losing in ethical and religious 
vigor. Significant as a protest against the pre- 
vailing tendencies of the time was the religious re- 
vival which had for its chief preachers Jonathan 
Edwards and George Whitefield. The " Great Awak- 
ening" may be said to have begun in 1734 with 
the revival in Edwards's Church at Northampton, 
in western Massachusetts. A short period of com- 
parative inaction followed, but in 1739 the smoul- 
dering fire was fanned into flame by the passionate 
eloquence of Whitefield. The new revival spread 
through the southern and middle colonies and pro- 
duced a powerful impression upon nearly all classes. 
Even the unemotional Franklin found it hard at 
times to resist the spell of Whitefield's oratory. 

Gradually, however, the inevitable reaction came ; 
for the movement was unwelcome not only to those 
who were tinged with the new secular spirit, but 
also to many who stood for the old ecclesiastical 
order. Thus Whitefield found among his antagonists 
the Anglican commissary Garden, of South Caro- 

^ Journal and Letters of Eliza Lucas, 6,17; Jones, Present State 
of Virginia (ed. of 1865), 31. 


lina, many of the leading Puritan ministers of New 
England, and the faculties of Yale and Harvard.^ 
By 1745 the "Great Awakening" had largely spent 
its force, and to-day men question whether it really 
helped or harmed the cause of morals and true re- 
ligion. Many of its leaders were men of no great 
significance in American life ; and even Whitefield 
was not a man of commanding intellect or char- 

One of these men cannot be so easily dismissed. 
Jonathan Edwards was not only a preacher of ex- 
traordinary power, trying to bring back his people 
to the hard but virile Calvinism from which they 
were gradually drifting, but perhaps the keenest 
and most original thinker America has ever pro- 
duced. A graduate of Yale College at a time when 
it seemed on the verge of disintegration, he spent 
nearly all his life as the pastor of a small country 
town. Yet the great Scotch metaphysician, Stew- 
art, said of him that in " logical acuteness and sub- 
tilty" he was not inferior "to any disputant bred 
in the universities of Europe"; and the German 
scholar, Immanuel Fichte, nearly a century after 
Edwards's death, expressed his admiration for the 
contributions to ethical theory made by this "soli- 
tary thinker of North America."^ 

This preacher and metaphysician was also a gen- 

* Palfrey, New England, V., 1-41. 

2 Fisher, " The Philosophy of Jonathan Edwards," in North 
American Review, CXXVIII,, 284-303. 




uine poet. Like Dante, he used his imaginative 
power in depicting the terrors of the world to come 
for those who died unsaved, but he was also finely 
sensitive to beauty in nature and in the world of 
spirit. His record of his early spiritual experience 
contains many passages of exquisite beauty. In 
one of them he describes the soul of a true Chris- 
tian" as resembling "such a little white flower as 
we see in the spring of the year ; low and humble on 
the ground, opening its bosom to receive the pleas- 
ant beams of the sun's glory, rejoicing, as it were, in 
a calm rapture ; diffusing around a sweet fragrancy ; 
standing peacefully and lovingly, in the midst of 
other flowers round about ; all in like manner open- 
ing their bosoms to drink in the light of the sun." ^ 

Edwards was born in 1703 and Franklin in 1706, 
both before the close of the first century of English 
colonization. The two men were alike in the keen- 
ness and range of their intellectual interests, and 
alike also in a reputation transcending the limits of 
the provincial communities in which they lived. 
In other respects they were as opposite as the poles. 
In sharp contrast to Franklin, with his worldly wis- 
dom, his unemotional temper, and his matter-of- 
fact philanthropy, stands the great idealist Edwards, 
who in his writings and his life probably approached 
more nearly than any American before or since his 
time the highest levels of the human spirit. 

In 1743, while Edwards was absorbed in the 
* Edwards, Works (Dwight's ed.), Ivi. 


problems of the Great Awakening, Franklin wrote 
his Proposal for Promoting Useful Knowledge among 
the British Plantations in America,^ in which he 
urged that, " the first drudgery of settling new colo- 
nies " being "pretty well over," Americans might 
do their part in scientific and philosophical inquiry. 
Certainly his own achievements and those of Ed- 
wards might well have encouraged such a hope. 

From these studies, however, Franklin himself was 
soon diverted by new and perplexing political prob- 
lems. Already the final struggle was corning on 
for the mastery of the continent. Already, too, 
there lay beneath the obscure questions of provin- 
cial politics deeper issues which were to estrange the 
colonies from the mother-country and force upon 
them the great problems of government for a new 
nation. Thus politics rather than speculation be- 
came the absorbing interest of the next generation, 
which saw the end of the provincial era. 

* Franklin, Works (Bigelow's ed.), I., 480 




JUSTIN WINSOR, Narrative and Critical History of 
America (8 vols., 1884-1889), gives the most detailed 
accoiint of the literature of this period, chiefly in vol. 
v.; but much important material has since appeared. 
Channing and Hart, Guide to the Study of American History 
(1896), is a compact and systematic collection of reference 
lists, in which, however, the topics are less developed for 
this than for the earlier period. J. N. Lamed, Literature 
of American History (1902), contains useful descriptive 
and critical notes, mainly by competent hands. Charles 
McL. Andrews, American Colonial History {i6go - 1^50) , 
(American Historical Association, Report, 1898), and his 
"Materials in British Archives for American Colonial 
History" (^American Historical Review, X., 325-349, 
January, 1905), are serviceable accounts of printed and 
manuscript material. See also, Moses Coit Tyler, History 
of American Literature (2 vols., 1879; revised ed., 1897). 


No comprehensive treatment of this period has yet 
appeared which represents fairly the present state of 
knowledge or the point of view of recent students. Of the 
general histories written during the eighteenth century, 
John Oldmixon, British Empire in America (2 vols., 1708; 
revised edition, 1741), and William Douglass, A Summary, 
Historical and Political, . . . of the British Settlements in 



North America (2 vols., 1749, 1751), are still worth con- 
sulting, though neither is accurate. The most scholarly 
of the eighteenth - century writers was George Chalmers, 
whose works covering this period are An Introduction to the 
History of the Revolt of the American Colonies (vol. I., 1782; 
2 vols., 1845), and his fragmentary Continuation (to 1696) 
of his Political Annals of the Present United Colonies (this 
continuation is in New York Historical Society, Collections, 
Publication Fund, 1868). Chalmers was a royalist official 
who had had experience in America, and argued that the 
colonists were during this period aiming at independence. 
Notwithstanding this theory, his careful study of the Brit- 
ish state papers makes his Revolt still the best general ac- 
count of colonial politics in the eighteenth century. 

The accounts of the period by George Bancroft, History 
of the United States (last revision, 6 vols., 1888), and 
Richard Hildreth, History of the United States (6 vols., 
1849-1852), are both scholarly, but defective on the 
institutional side and antiquated in method of treatment 
and point of view. The various volumes by John Fiske 
are fragmentary in their treatment of the eighteenth cen- 
tury, especially for New England, and lay special stress 
upon the picturesque aspects of politics and society. 
Another popular treatment is by Bryant and Gay, Popular 
History of the United States (4 vols., 1881, especially vol. 
III.), but neither this work nor Fiske gives an adequate 
view of general political conditions and tendencies. Justin 
Winsor, Narrative and Critical History of America (8 vols., 
1888-1889), contains in vol. V. some learned and indispen- 
sable chapters, especially that by the editor on New Eng- 
land; but there is little account of general movements 
except on the international side. John A. Doyle, English 
in America (3 vols., 1882-1887), is as yet mainly confined 
to the seventeenth century. 


The most important repository of material relating to 
the colonies is the State-Paper Office in London. Abstracts 


of these papers have been published in the Calendars of 
State Papers, Colonial Series: America and West Indies (9 
vols., 1860-1903); but the last volume so far published 
stops at 1696. Much of the remaining material has, how- 
ever, been published by state governments and historical 
societies. Especially valuable for general colonial conditions 
are: the Docitments Relative to the Colonial History of New 
York (14 vols, and index, 1856-1883); Documents Re- 
lating to the Colonial History of New Jersey (22 vols., 1880- 
1902); and Colonial Records of North Carolina (10 vols., 

Important contemporary documents are reprinted in 
Peter Force, Tracts and other Papers relating principally to 
the Colonies in North America (4 vols., 1 836-1 846), and in 
G. P. Humphrey, American Colonial Tracts (18 Nos., 1897- 
1898). Albert Bushnell Hart, American History Told by 
Contemporaries (4 vols., 189 7-1 901 ; vol. II. on this period), 
is representative both in the topics covered and in the nar- 
ratives chosen to illustrate them. 


The following histories of England covering this period 
are important for international relations: Leopold von 
Ranke, History of England, principally in the Seventeenth 
Century (6 vols., 1875); W. E. H. Lecky, England in the 
Eighteenth Century (8 vols., 1878-1890); Lord Mahon, His- 
tory of England, i/ij-i/'8j (vols. I. -III., 1858); Earl Stan- 
hope, if ^"stor^^ of England, i/oi-i/'ij (2 vols., 1872; also i 
vol., 1870) ; Carl von Noorden, Der Spanische Erbfolge-Krieg 
(3 vols., 1870-1882; published as vols. I.-III. of his Euro- 
pdische Geschichte in Achtzehnten J ahrhundert) , is the most 
adequate accoimt of the War of the Spanish Succession and 
the underlying issues of commerce and politics. The lives, 
memoirs, and published papers of such statesmen as Marl- 
borough, Bolingbroke, and AValpole should also be studied, 
together with the reports of debates, in William Cobbett, 
Parliamentary History of England (36 vols., 1806-1820). 


For the colonial wars from 1689 to 1713, the leading 
secondary authorities are: Francis Parkman, Count Fron- 
tenac and New France (1878), and his Half -Century of 
Conflict (2 vols., 1892); Henri Lorin, Le Comte de Fron- 
tenac (1895); William Kingsford, History of Canada (vols. 
II., III., 1888); S. A. Drake, Border Wars of New England 
(1897). G. W. Schuyler, Colonial New York (3 vols., 
1885), is valuable for the New York frontier. 

The principal English documents are in Documents 
Relative to the Colonial History of New York, III.-V. ; 
vol. IX. contains translations from the French archives. 
The important contemporary history of the border war- 
fare is Samuel Penhallow, Wars of New England with the 
Eastern Indians (1726; new ed., 1859). Cadwallader 
Colden, Five Indian Nations (1727; good editions by J. G. 
Shea, 1866, and G. P. Winship, 1904), is also valuable. 
Compare, on this section, Reuben G. Thwaites, France 
in America {American Nation, VIL), chap. xix. 


For the relation of colonial policy to economic develop- 
ment see William Cunningham, English Industry and Com- 
merce in Modern Times, pt. i. (1903). An old-fashioned 
but substantial work is Adam Anderson, An Historical and 
Chronological Deduction of the Origin of Commerce (4 vols., 
1 7 87-1 7 89). The best brief account of British colonial 
policy is H. E. Egerton, Short History of British Colonial 
Policy (1897), based in part upon the state papers. G. 
L. Beer, Commercial Policy of England towards the American 
Colonies {Columbia University Studies, III., No. 2, 1893), 
is the most complete study on the commercial side. 

Contemporary English opinion may be studied in nu- 
merous political tracts (see bibliography in Beer, as above) ; 
in William Cobbett, Parliamentary History of England 
(1806-1820); in Journals of the House of Commons and 
Journals of the House of Lords. The statutes to 17 13 are 
in Statutes of the Realm (12 vols., 1810-1828); after that 



date in Danby Pickering, Statutes at Large (log vols, and 
index, 1762). 

Louise P. Kellogg, The American Colonial Charter (Amer- 
ican Historical Association, Report, 1903, I., 185-341), is an 
excellent essay upon British administrative policy, chiefly 
during this period, based largely upon the state papers 
in London. Other useful essays are: Eleanor L. Lord, 
Industrial Experiments in the British Colonies of North 
America {Johns Hopkins University Studies, extra vol., 
1898); H. D. Hazeltine, Appeals from Colonial Courts to 
the King in Council (American Historical Association, Re- 
port, 1894); E. P. Tanner, "Colonial Agencies," in Political 
Science Quarterly, XVI., 24-49 (1901)- Eoi" legal questions, 
Chalmers, Opinions of Eminent Lawyers on Various Points 
of English Jurisprudence, etc. (2 vols., 1814; also i vol., 
1858), is of the first importance; it contains a number of 
official reports on disallowing colonial statutes. See also 
St. G. L. Sioussat, The English Statutes in Maryland {Johns 
Hopkins University Studies, XXI., Nos. 11, 12). 

The documentary collections of New York, New Jersey, 
and North Carolina mentioned above contain important 
material on this subject. Especially valuable also are the 
following volumes of official correspondence: Robert N. 
Toppan, ed., Edward Randolph (5 vols., 1898-1899); the 
Belcher Papers (Massachusetts Historical Society, Col- 
lections, 6th series, VI., VII.); the Talcott Papers (Con- 
necticut Historical Society, Collections, IV., V.); G. S. 
Kimball, ed.. Correspondence of the Colonial Governors of 
Rhode Island, I72j-iy75 (2 vols., 1902-1903); Correspond- 
ence between William Penn and James Logan (Pennsylvania 
Historical Society, Memoirs, IX., X.). 

Consult for subject-matter and bibliography of this 
section, Andrews, Colonial Self - Government {American 
Nation, V.), especially chaps, i., ii., xvii., xx. 


H. L. Osgood, The American Colonies in the Seventeenth 
Century (1904), in the two volumes published, is limited 

VOL. VI. — 23 


to the proprietary and corporate colonies, but the royal 
provinces are to be considered in a third volume. Though 
dealing mainly with earlier conditions, these scholarly 
volumes constitute a valuable introduction to the study 
of political institutions in the eighteenth century. For 
the later period the student must depend upon mono- 
graphic and documentary material. 

E. B. Greene, The Provincial Governor in the English Colo- 
nies of North America {Harvard Historical Studies, VII., 
1898), includes the royal and proprietary colonies, and gives 
special attention to the conflicts between the governors and 
the representative assemblies. • The representative element 
in the constitution is considered in two careful monographs : 
C. F. Bishop, History of Elections in the American Colonies 
{Columbia University Studies, III., No. i), is chiefly a simi- 
mary of colonial legislation; A. E. McKinley, The Suffrage 
Franchise in the Thirteen English Colonies (University 
of Pennsylvania, Publications, Series in History, No. 2, 
1905), is extremely detailed, giving more attention to 
causes and effects. Frank H. Miller, Legal Qualifications 
for Office (American Historical Association, Report, 1899, 1., 
pp. 87-151), deals with another side of the representative 

The following are useful accounts of particular provinces: 
[Edward] Long, History of Jamaica (3 vols., 1774), a good 
early description of a royal province; J. V. L. McMahon, 
An Historical View of the Government of Maryland (vol. I., 
1 831); [Benjamin Franklin], Historical Review of the Con- 
stitution and Government of Pennsylvania (London, 1759; 
reprinted in Franklin, Works, Sparks's edition, 1809), a 
partisan narrative. The best recent study of a royal 
government is W. Roy Smith, South Carolina as a Royal 
Province (1903); less successful, but useful, is C. L. Raper, 
North Carolina (1904) ; cf. E. L. Whitney, Government of the 
Colony of South Carolina {Johns Hopkins University Studies , 
XIII., No. 2, 1895). The best account of a proprietary 
province is N. D. Mereness, Maryland as a Proprietary 
Province (1901). W. R. Shepherd, History of Proprietary 



Government in Pennsylvania {Columbia University Studies, 
VI., 1896), contains valuable material and shows thorough 
research, but is unfortunately constructed. Isaac Sharp- 
less, History of Quaker Government in Pennsylvania, 1682- 
lySj (1898, also 1902 as vol. I. of his Quaker Experiment 
in Government), is fair minded and suggestive. 


Church of England. — J. S. M. Anderson, History of 
the Church of England in the Colonies (revised ed., 3 vols., 
1856), is written by a moderate Anglican, largely from 
first-hand material, and, though old - fashioned, is still 
valuable. The most important recent history is W. S. 
Perry, History of the American Episcopal Church (2 vols., 
1885); it contains some monographic chapters contributed 
by other writers, and important selections from the sources. 
Arthur L. Cross, The Anglican Episcopate and the Ameri- 
can Colonies {Harvard Historical Studies, IX., 1902), is a 
scholarly monograph founded on manuscript as well as 
printed material dealing with the colonial jurisdiction of the 
Bishop of London and the attempts to establish an Ameri- 
can episcopate. Bishop [William] Meade, Old Churches, 
Ministers, and Families of Virginia (2 vols., 1857, also, 
1872), is a valuable authority on religious and social history. 
The most important documentary collections are: Hawks 
and Perry, Documentary History of the Protestant Episcopal 
Church in the United States (2 vols., 1863-1864), and W. S. 
Perry, Papers Relating to the History of the Church (5 vols., 
1870-1878), containing documents for Connecticut, Virginia, 
Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Maryland, and Delaware. 

New England Puritanism. — See on this subject, H. 
M. Dexter, Congregationalism as Seen in Its Literature 
(1880); P. E. Lauer, Church and State in New England 
{Johns Hopkins University Studies, X., Nos. 2, 3); I. 
Backus, History of New England with Particular Reference 
to the Denomination of Christians Called Baptists (2d ed., 
187 1 ), valuable for the relations between the Congrega- 
tional establishment and the dissenting bodies; E, F. 


Slafter, ed., John Checkley, or the Evolution of Religious 
Tolerance in Massachusetts Bay (2 vols., 1897); A. P. 
Marvin, Life and Times of Cotton Mather (1892); Barrett 
Wendell, Cotton Mather, the Puritan Priest (1891), a brief 
but suggestive study, based largely on Mather's diaries. 
Important as illustrating religious feeling are: Cotton 
Mather, Magnalia Christi Americana (1702 ; best ed., 2 vols., 
1853); and Samuel Sewall, Diary (Massachusetts Historical 
Society, Collections, sth series, V.-VII.). 

Witchcraft. — For the abundant literature on this epi- 
sode, see Justin Winsor, The Literature of Witchcraft in New 
England (American Antiquarian Society, Proceedings,^., 
351-373, 1896). The most detailed study is in C. W. 
Upham, Salem Witchcraft (2 vols., 1867) ; but his treatment 
of the Mathers has been ably criticised by W. F. Poole, in 
North American Review, CVIII., 337-397. Important also 
are Samuel G. Drake, Annals of Witchcraft in New Eng- 
land (1869); and W. E. Woodward, ed., Records of Salem 
Witchcraft, Copied from the Original Documents (2 vols., 

Other Religious Bodies. — See the various volimies of 
the American Church History Series, including bibliographi- 
cal chapters and a final bibliographical volume. See also 
Ecclesiastical Records, State of New York (4 vols., 1901- 

economic history 

There is as yet no comprehensive economic history of 
the American colonies; but, for New England, William B. 
Weeden, Economic and Social History of New England (2 
vols., 1890-1891), is a valuable storehouse of facts. Philip 
A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth 
Century (2 vols., 1896), describes the initial conditions. Of 
the histories of particular colonies, Edward McCrady, His- 
tory of South Carolina under the Royal Government (1899), is 
especially serviceable on the economic side. 

Southern Land Administrations. — See J. C. Ballagh, 
Introduction to Southern Economic History — The Land SyS' 



tern in the South (American Historical Association, Report, 
1897), and the chapters on the subject in Mereness, Mary- 
land ; Raper, North Carolina ; and Smith, South Carolina. 
There are two scholarly essays by J. S. Bassett: The Rela- 
tion between the Virginia Planter and the London Merchant 
(American Historical Association, Report, 1901, pp. 551- 
575) ; and the introduction to his edition of the Writings of 
Colonel William Byrd (1901). 

Manufactures and Commerce. — Some material may 
be found in the works of Anderson, Cunningham, and 
Weeden mentioned above; and in J. L. Bishop, History of 
American Manufactures (3 vols., 1867); but the printed 
material is chiefly in the documentary collections. 

Financial History. — See the references in Davis R. 
Dewey, Financial History of the United States (1903), 
chap. i. The best general view of colonial currency is 
Charles J. Bullock, Essays on the Monetary History of the 
United States (1900). The most detailed study of currency 
and banking is Andrew McF. Davis, Currency and Banking 
in Massachusetts Bay (American Economic Association, 
Publications, 3d series, I., No. 4, and II, No. 2). 


On colonial slavery, see especially G. H. Moore, Notes on 
the History of Slavery in Massachusetts (1866); Edward 
McCrady, Slavery in South Carolina (American Historical 
Association, i^^^or^, 1895, pp. 331-373); Edward Needles, 
An Historical Memoir of the Pennsylvania Society (1848); 
Edwin V. Morgan, Slavery in New York (Americm Histori- 
cal Accociation, Papers, V.) ; and the following ntmibers of 
the Johns Hopkins University Studies: B. C. ^teiner, History 
of Slavery in Connecticut (XI., Nos. 9, 10); Edward Chan- 
ning, Narragansett Planters (IV., No. 3) ; Jeffrey R. Brack- 
ett, The Negro in Maryland (extra vol. VI.) ; J. C. Ballagh, 
A History of Slavery in Virginia (extra vol., 1902); Stephen 
B. Weeks, Southern Quakers and Slavery (extra vol. XV., 
1890), The most scholarly treatment of the slave-trade 


and its regulation is W. E. B. Du Bois, Suppression of 
the African Slave -Trade (Harvard Historical Studies, I.). 
Important studies of white servitude are K. F. Geiser, 
Redemptioners and Indented Servants in Pennsylvania (sup- 
plement to Yale Review, X., No. 2, 1901) ; and two numbers 
in the Johns Hopkins University Studies : E. I. McCormac, 
White Servitude in Maryland (XXI., Nos. 3, 4); and J. C. 
Ballagh, White Servitude in Maryland (XIII., Nos. 6, 7). 
See critical chapter in Albert Bushnell Hart, Slavery 
and Abolition {American Nation, XVI.). 


For seventeenth-century narratives, see Andrews, Colonial 
Self -Government {American Nation, V.), 340-342. The foot- 
notes in Henry Cabot Lodge, Short History of the English 
Colonies in America (1881), are still useful guides in this 
field. Many extracts are printed in Albert Bushnell Hart, 
American History Told by Contemporaries, II. (1899). 

The following records of travel are noteworthy: Madam 
[S. K.] Knight, Journal, 1 704-1 705 (editions, 1825, 1865), 
a realistic account of contemporary conditions chiefly 
in New England; George Keith, Journal of Travels from 
New Hampshire to Caratuck (1706; reprinted in Protestant 
Episcopal Historical Society, Collections, I., 1851), records 
the missionary journeys of a zealous Anglican; George 
Whitefield, Journal of a Voyage from London to Savannah 
(2d ed., 1738, and numerous other editions of this and the 
continuations). For conditions at the close of this period, 
consult Peter Kalm, Travels into North America (in trans., 
1770 and later eds. ; reprinted in Pinkerton, Voyages, XIII.), 
written by a Swedish naturalist who travelled chiefly in the 
middle colonies during the years 1749 and 1750; Andrew 
Burnaby, Travels through the Middle Settlements in North- 
America (1775, and later editions; reprinted in Pinkerton, 
Voyages, XIII.). 

Important contemporary descriptions of particular 



colonies are John Callender, Historical Discourse on the 
Civil and Religious Affairs of the Colony of Rhode Island 
and Providence Plantations (1739; reprinted in Rhode 
Island Historical Society, Collections, IV., 1838); [Robert 
Beverley], History of Virginia (1705 and later eds.); 
Hartwell, Blair, and Chilton, The Present State of Virginia 
and the College (1727); Hugh Jones, The Present State of 
Virginia (1724; reprinted, 1865); William Byrd, Writings 
(1841; later eds. by T. H. Wynne, 1866, 2 vols., and J. S. 
Bassett, 1901), the observations of a cultivated man of the 
world. Much the most important personal records are 
Samuel Sewall, Diary, mentioned above, and Franklin, 
Autobiography (many eds. and in all eds. of his works). 
See also Eliza Lucas, Journal and Letters (Holbrook's ed., 
1850), for South Carolina in the middle of the eighteenth 

Good descriptions of social life founded on contempo- 
rary records are the nimierous volumes of Mrs. Alice Morse 
Earle, dealing chiefly with New England, which are listed 
in Lamed, Literature of American History, 70. See also 
articles on colonial life by Edward Eggleston {Century 
Magazine, 1 883-1 885), and the William and Mary College 
Quarterly (1893-). The numerous local histories, of which 
the best is Justin Winsor, Memorial History of Boston (4 
vols., 1880-1881), are important for social conditions. See 
lists in Channing and Hart, Guide, § 23. 


There is much monographic and antiquarian material 
on this subject, but no comprehensive treatise. For the 
Germans, especially in Pennsylvania, the best introduc- 
tion is Oscar Kuhns, The German and Swiss Settlements 
of Colonial Pennsylvania (1901), which includes a good 
bibliography. Some important special studies are: Fried- 
rich Kapp, Die Deutschen im Staate New York wdhrend 
des Achtzehnten Jahrhunderts (revised ed., 1884); various 
works by F. R. DifEenderffer, J. F. Sachse, and S. W. Penny- 


packer (titles given by Kuhns) ; G. D. Bemheim, History 
of German Settlements in North and South Carolina (1872). 

C. A. Hanna, The Scotch-Irish or the Scot in Great Britain, 
North Ireland, and North America (2 vols., 1902), is un- 
scientific but contains some valuable matter. See also S. S. 
Green, The Scotch-Irish in America (American Antiquarian 
Society, Proceedings, X., 32-70, with bibliography). C. 
W. Baird, History of the Huguenot Emigration to America 
(2 vols., 1885), deals chiefly with the seventeenth century. 
See also Huguenot Papers (in Virginia Historical Society, 
Collections, new series, V.). 

On colonial regulation of immigration, see Ember son E. 
Proper, Colonial Immigration Laws {Columbia University 
Studies, XVI., No. 2, 1900) ; A. H. Carpenter, " Naturaliza- 
tion in England and the Colonies," in American Historical 
Review, IX., 288-303. 


On the colonial colleges, the most scholarly work is Josiah 
Quincy, History of Harvard University (2d ed., 2 vols., i860) ; 
the appendices contain many original documents. For the 
founding of Yale, see Thomas Clap, Annals or History of 
Yale College (1766) ; papers by F. B. Dexter and Simeon E. 
Baldwin, in New Haven Colony Historical Society, Papers, 
III.; and W. L. Kingsley, Yale College (2 vols., 1879). On 
William and Mary College, see H. B. Adams, The College of 
William and Mary (U. S. Bureau of Education, Circulars 
of Information, No. i, 1887), which contains an extended 
bibliography; and various numbers of the William and 
Mary College Quarterly (1893-). 

The reports and circulars of the U. S. Bureau of Educa- 
tion, though of unequal value, contain some valuable papers 
on colonial education. See also E. W. Clews, Educational 
Legislation and Administration of the Colonial Governments 
(Columbia University, Contributions to Philosophy, etc., 
VI., 1899). 

The best introduction to the study of colonial culture is 



Moses Coit Tyler, History of American Literature, i6oy- 
176^ (2 vols., 1879; revised ed., 1897). Important also are 
Isaiah Thomas, History of Printing in America (best ed. in 
American Antiquarian Society, Archceologia Americana, V., 
VI., 1874); Stedman and Hutchinson, Library of American 
Literature (11 vols., 1887-1890); and A. B.Hart, American 
History Told by Contemporaries, 11. 


A few essential books for this period will be given imder 
each colony. For other critical estimates, see Andrews, 
Colonial Self -Government (American Nation, V.), chap. xx. 

New England. — J. G. Palfrey, History of New England 
(vols. IV., v., 1875, 1890), is the most important single 
work on New England; it is based upon a wide range of 
printed and manuscript material and is not soon likely 
to be superseded. See also Weeden, Economic and Social 
History, mentioned above. 

For Massachusetts, the most important history is Thomas 
Hutchinson, History of Massachusetts Bay, 1628-ij^o (2 
vols., 1764, 1767; 3ded., 1795), which is in part the record 
of a contemporary. The most useful documentary publi- 
cation is the Acts and Resolves, Public a-nd Private, of the 
Province of Massachusetts Bay (10 vols., 1869-1902). Be- 
sides the statutes there is much original material in the 
notes. Indispensable also are the Collections and Proceed- 
ings of the Massachusetts Historical Society. For New 
Hampshire, the standard history is Jeremy Belknap, The 
History of New Harap shire (3 vols., 1 784-1 792); and the 
chief documentary collection is New Hampshire Provincial 
Papers (7 vols., 1867-1873). For Connecticut, Benjamin 
Trumbull, History of Connecticut (2 vols., 1797; new ed., 
1898), should be used with the Colonial Records of Connecti- 
cut (15 vols., 1850-1890), and the Connecticut Historical 
Society, Collections (9 vols., 1860-1903). For Rhode Island, 
the chief authorities are S. G. Arnold, History of Rhode Isl- 
and and Providejiec Plantations (2 vols., 1859-1860; 4th ed., 


1899), and the Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and 
Providence Plantations (10 vols., 1856-1865). 

Middle Colonies. — John Fiske, Dutch and Quaker Colo- 
nies (2 vols., 1899), is a general, popular account. William 
Smith, History of New York (1757 and various later edi- 
tions), is valuable for this period. Of the nimierous docu- 
mentary collections the most important are the Documents 
Relative to the Colonial History of New York, already men- 
tioned ; the Documentary History of the State of New York 
(4 vols., 1849-1851) ; and the Colonial Laws of New York (5 
vols., 1894). For New Jersey, see Samuel Smith, History 
of the Colony of New Jersey (1765), an unsatisfactory his- 
tory, but containing many documents ; and the Documents 
Relating to tJie Colonial History of tlie State of New Jersey 
(22 vols., 1880-1902), containing public records and impor- 
tant extracts from colonial newspapers. 

For Pennsylvania, the most useful histories are Robert 
Proud, History of Pennsylvania (2 vols., 1797-1798), and 
those of W. R. Shepherd and Isaac Sharpless, already 
mentioned. The latter author asserts that "an authentic 
and impartial history of Colonial Pennsylvania is yet to be 
written." The chief documentary collections are Colonial 
Records, 1683 -1776 (10 vols., 1851-1852); Votes and 
Proceedings of tJte House of Representatives (6 vols., 1752- 
1776); the Meynoirs of the Pennsylvania Historical Society 
and its Penyisylvania Magazine of History and Biography; 
and the Statutes at Large of Pennsylvania (vols. II.-VIII., 

Southern Colonies. — For Virginia, the chief secondary 
authorities for this period are J. D. Burk, History of Vir- 
ginia (3 vols., 1804-1805), and Charles Campbell, History 
of the Colony a-nd Ancient Dominion of Virginia (i860). 
There are three interesting chapters, chiefly on social con- 
ditions, in John Fiske, Old Virginia and Her Neighbors, II. 
(1898). The principal collection of documents is W. W. 
Hening, Statutes at Large, i6ig-iyg2 (13 vols., 1823). See 
also the Calendar of Virginia State Papers, I. (1875); the 
Virginia Magazine of History afid Biography (1893-); the 



William and Mary College Quarterly; the Virginia Historical 
Society, Collections, especially vols. I. and II., containing the 
Official Letters of Alexander Spotswood. For Maryland dur- 
ing this period, the most useful secondary works are those 
of McMahon and Mereness already mentioned. The valu- 
able collection of The Archives of Maryland has so far been 
confined mainly to the seventeenth century. Much im- 
portant material is included in the Maryland Historical 
Society, Fund Publications, especially No. 34 (the Calvert 
Papers, II.). 

The narrative history of South Carolina can be best stud- 
ied in Edward McCrady, History of South Carolina under the 
Proprietary Government (1897) and History of South Caro- 
lina under the Royal Government (1899). The first volume 
is rigidly chronological, but the second contains valuable 
chapters on special topics. The older works by W. J. 
Rivers, Sketch of the History of South Carolina (1856) and 
A Chapter in the Early History of South Carolina (1874), 
contain many documents and should still be consulted. 
See also Smith, South Carolina as a Royal Province, already 
mentioned. For the narrative history of North Carolina, 
see F. L. Hawks, History of North Carolina (2 vols. 1857- 
1858), and on the institutional side, C. L. Raper, North 
Carolina (1904). The most complete documentary collec- 
tion for the Carolinas is the Colonial Records of North Caro- 
lina, already mentioned. There is no similar collection for 
South Carolina; but important source material may be 
found in the Collections of the South Carolina Historical 
Society, still in progress, and in B. R. Carroll, Historical 
Collections of South Carolina (2 vols., 1836). 

The best of the older histories of Georgia is W. B. 
Stevens, History of Georgia (2 vols., 1847, 1859); it shows 
extensive and scholarly use of the sources. C. C. Jones, Jr., 
History of Georgia (2 vols., 1883), though based in part on 
the older writers, shows also independent examination of 
source material, much of which is incorporated with the 
text. Among the numerous lives of Oglethorpe, the most 
important is still Robert Wright, Memoir of General James 


Oglethorpe (1867); see also Letters from General Oglethorpe 
(Georgia Historical Society, Collections, III.). 

The Journal of the Transactions of the Trustees of the 
Colony of Georgia in America was published in 1886, by 
C. C. Jones. Important contemporary narratives are pub- 
lished in the Georgia Historical Society, Collections (vols, 
I.-IV., 1840), and in Peter Force, Tracts on the Colonies. 
Further bibliographical data are given by C. C. Jones, in 
Winsor, Narrative and Critical History of America, V., 


Abenaki Indians, raids on New- 
England, no, 119, 126, 127, 
142, 143, 145-147; treaties, 
127, 134, 145, 163. 

Acadia, joined to Massachusetts, 
21, 127; captured by Phips, 
122; boundary controversy , 
no; instigates Indian raids, 
no; recovered, 126; Church's 
raids (1696), 127; (1704), 149; 
March's expedition, 149; final 
conquest, 157; ceded to Eng- 
land, 162. 

Adams, John, on paper money 
and loyalty, 180. 

Administration. See Board of 
Trade, Colonies, Governors. 

Admiralty, control over colonies, 
45,171; colonial courts, 48, 53. 

Agents, colonial, in England, 78; 
bribery by, 79. 

Agriculture, conditions (1689), 
9; plantation system, 270- 
276; northern, 277. 

Albany, independent of Leisler, 
117; trade with Canada, 213, 

Allen, Samuel, control in New 

Hampshire, 21. 
Amory, Thomas, on illicit trade, 

294; merchant, 299. 
Andover raid, 128. 
Andros, Edmund, overthrow, 18; 

governor of Virginia, 24, 
Annapolis, Maryland, in 1750, 


Anne, Queen, personal influence 

on colonial policy, 43; and 
colonial bishops, 104. 

Antislavery, colonial, 242. 

Appointments, minor colonial 
officers, 74, 76, 199; character 
of colonial, 172; sinecure, 172. 

Aristocracy, New York, 206; 
Virginia, 207. 

Art, colonial, 319. 

Asiento, 161, 238. 

Assemblies, representative, 
rights, 66 ; limitations on legis- 
lative powers, 67; policy, 67; 
conflict with governors, 67, 
194; and spirit of self-govern- 
ment, 69 ; inspired by House of 
Commons, 69,72; bills of rights, 
70-72; frequent elections, 72, 
73, 195; judging elections, 73; 
financial control, 73-78, 198- 
200, 220; appointment of ad- 
ministrative officers, 74, 76, 
199; salary controversies, 75, 
196-198; speaker controver- 
sies, 195, 224. 

Bahamas, English colony, 5; 
pirates, 292. 

Baltimore, Benedict, Lord, pro- 
prietary restored, 181. 

Baltimore, Charles, Lord, loses 
control, retains soil, 22. 

Baltimore in 1750, 243. 

Banks, Massachusetts Land, 180, 
187, 215, 225, 298; colonial 
paper -money, 297; bibliog- 
raphy, 333. 



Baptists in New England, 87: 
and support of establishment, 
89, 90; in Georgia, 269. 

Barbadoes, English colony. 5. 

Barnard, Sir John, on Molasses 
Act, 179; on taxing colonies, 

Barnwell, John, expedition 
against Tuscaroras, 164. 

Barter, colonial, 295. 

Bartram. John, scientist, 319. 

Beachy Head, battle, 114. 

Beaubassin destro3-ed, 127. 

Belcher, Jonathan, career, 213- 
216; and Princeton, 312. 

Bellomont, Earl of. governor, 
32, 56; and imperial control, 
32; and church matters, 84, 
95; and Kidd, 292. 

Berkeley, George, in America, 

Bermudas, English colon}-, 5. 

Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, 
founded, 246. 

Bibliographies of period 1689- 
1740, 325- 

Bills of rights, colonial, 70-72. 

Bladen, Martin, in Board of 
Trade, 169; proposes stamp 
duty, 185. 

Blair, James, commissary, 93; 
and Spotswood, 210; social in- 
fluence, 302, 315 ; and William 
and Mary College, 304, 305. 

Blathwa^-te, William, in Board 
of Trade. 47. 

Board of Trade, organization, 
46 ; composition, 46 ; attempt- 
ed control by Parliament, 46, 
49; colonial authority, 47, 48. 
169 -171; agitation against 
charters, 60; and colonial bills 
of rights, 72; and colonial 
salaries, 77; and control of 
appointments, 172, 200; and 
governors, 173; and triennial 
elections, 176, 195; and 
ufactures, 278; and Indian 
trade, 284. 

Bolingbroke. Viscotmt, control 
over colonies, 45, 61 ; and con- 
quest of Canada, 15S. 

Bolzius. Martin, in Georgia, 269. 

Bonnet, Steve, pirate, 293. 

Boston, French plans against, 
125, 129; in 1750, 244; news- 
papers, 315; social conditions, 

Boundaries, Acadia — New Eng- 
land, no; intercolonial dis- 
putes, 190-192; Georgia, 253. 

Bounties, commercial, 38, 17S; 
scalp, 147. 

Brattle Street Church contro- 
versy, 85. 

Brattleboro settlement, 245. 

Bray, Thomas, as commissar}'-, 
94, 97, 104; social influence, 
302, 313. 

Bnmswick, Maine, frontier town, 

Bumaby, Andrew, on colonial 
prosperity, 300. 

Burnet. William, salary dispute, 
196, 213; career, 21 1-2 13; so- 
cial influence. 302. 

Burroughs, George, -witchcraft, 

B}Td, William, on North Caro- 
lina, 193, 275; on slaver}', 
240, 241; on Norfolk, 243; 
real estate, 271 ; scientist, 

Callieres, Chevalier de, lead- 
ership, 116; plan against New 
York, 120. 

Canada, instigates Indian raids, 
no; ftir trade and western 
expansion, in, 283; and Iro- 
quois, 111-113; trade with 
Albany, 213. 283. See also 
wars by name. 

Cape Breton Island, France re- 
tains, 162. 

Carolinas, population (1689), 6; 
religious condition (1689), 8; 
proposed royal province, 60. 



See also North Carolina, South 

Carteret, Lord, claim in Caro- 

linas, 253, 
Cary rebellion, 98, 182. 
Casco (Portland), attacks on, 

120, 121. 
Castine settlement, 110. 
Catawba Indians, English trade, 


Catholicism in colonies (1689), 
8; restrictions on rights, 202. 

Charles II., foreign policy, 106, 

Charleston, importance, 9, 183, 
243; Spanish attack, 152, 153; 
trading-centre, 275; libraries, 
313, 314; social condition, 

Charters, question of restora- 
tion (1689), 19; Massachusetts 
(1691), 21; royal checks, 34; 
abnormal position -under, 55; 
agitation against, 56, 58-62, 
181, 184, 185, 219; general 
influence, 69; defended, 184; 
Georgia (1732), 253-256. See 
also Proprietary government. 

Checkley, John, Hbel suit, 88. 

Cherokee Indians, English trade, 
251, 260, 283. 

Church, Benjamin, Indian ex- 
pedition, 120; Acadian expe- 
ditions, 127, 149. 

Church of England in colonies 
(1689), 7-9; aggressiveness, 
83, 91; growth in New Eng- 
land, 84, 87, 89-91; and sup- 
port of Congregational estab- 
lishment, 89, 90; factor in 
New England politics, 91; 
loyalty, 91; establishment, 92, 
94, 96-99; control by bishop 
of London, 92, commissaries, 
p3, 94; Society for Propagat- 
mgthe Gospel, 94, 95 ; support 
of governors, 95 ; and imperial 
control, 95; general increase, 
95 ; discipline over clergy, 99, 

102; measures against dis- 
sent, 99-101; political activ- 
ity, 1 01; internal dissensions, 
101-103; engagement of min- 
isters, 102; agitation for bish- 
ops, 104, 105; in Georgia, 269; 
social influence, 302-304; bib- 
liography, 331. 

Claims in America, French and 
English (1689), 4, 5, 109, 112. 

Clarke, George, and triennial 
act, 176. 

Clinton, George, on taxation 
and representation, 185. 

Cocheco, Indians attack, 120. 

Codrington, Sir Christopher, 
in West Indies, 119. 

Colden, Cadwallader, and Bur- 
net, 212. 

Colman, Benjamin, liberal cult- 
ure, 316. 

Colonies, effect of revolution 
of 1689, 4, 15, 106-108; dis- 
tribution (1689), 4, 5; gov- 
ernmental confusion (1689), 
10, 18, 116; early policy of 
control, 11-13; variating ten- 
dencies, 12, 63; later Stuart 
policy, 12, 15, 16; consolida- 
tion ,15,16,18; compromise re- 
organization of William III., 
17-24; imsatisfactory results, 

17, 30, 43; military and com- 
mercial motives of control, 

18, 20, 30, 50, 116-118; agi- 
tation for more imperial con- 
trol, 30-33, 43 ; increased im- 
perial control, 33-42, 62, 79, 
180; king's personal control, 
43; control by Privy Council, 
44, 170; by secretaries of 
state, 45, 168; by executive 
boards, 45, 171; by Board 
of Trade, 46-48, 169- 171; 
growth of uniformity, 64, 
194; political system, 64- 
67; follow English tenden- 
cies, 68; agents in England, 
78; use of bribes, 79; politi- 


cal results (17 13), 79; and 
independence (17 13), 80-82; 
Walpole's policy, 167; inhar- 
monious control, 170; non- 
resident officers, 172; char- 
acter of appointments, 172, 
173; "salutary neglect," 187; 
antagonisms, 193; influence 
of New England, 198; per- 
sonal rights, 201-204; pro- 
posed, 249; bibliography of 
period 1689-1740, 325-327; 
of international relations ,327, 
328; of home relations, 328, 
329; of political institutions, 
329-331; of individual colo- 
nies, 337-340. See also As- 
semblies, Boundaries, Char- 
ters, Economic conditions. 
Governors, Judiciary, Legis- 
lation, Parliament, Politics, 
Proprietary, Religion, Social 
conditions. Union, and colo- 
nies, sections, and wars by 

Columbia College, foundation, 
304, 312. 

Commerce, West Indies, 5, 
286, 288, 289; colonial con- 
ditions (1689), g, 10; in- 
fluence on colonial policy, 
20, 30; colonial irregularities, 
3 1 ; registration of vessels, 3 5 ; 
piracy act, 38; post-office, 40^ 
210; influence on War of the 
Spanish Succession, 138, 139; 
competition for Indian, no, 
212, 213, 250, 257, 260, 283; 
privateering, 122, 140, 143, 
291; Asiento, 161, 238; inter- 
colonial disputes, 192; Cana- 
da-New York, 213; Georgia 
restrictions, 255, 267; system 
and products of southern, 
272-275; fur trade, 283; sea 
transportation, 284; and fish- 
eries, 284-286; middle colo- 
nies, 286; statistics of Eng- 
lish-colonial, 287; coasting, 

290; piracy, 291-295; cir- 
culating medium, 295-299; 
bibliography, 333. See also 
Customs, Navigation acts. 

Compton, Henry, and colonial 
church, 92, 93, 104. 

Conduit, John, on virtual repre- 
sentation, 186. 

Congregationalism, in colonies 
(1689), 7, 9; establishment, 
83, 88, See also Puritanism. 

Connecticut, proposed royal 
control, 59; proposed union 
with New Hampshire, 185; 
character of leaders, 217; 
and home government, 218, 
219; Yale, 307-309; bibliog- 
raphy, 337. See also New 

Cooke, Elisha (i), leadership, 

74, 224._ 

Cooke, Elisha (2), leadership, 

Coram, Thomas, colonial inter- 
est, 171. 

Corey, Giles, witchcraft, 27. 

Cornbury, Lord, as governor, 
58, 173; and dissenters, 100. 

Cosby, William, as governor, 
173, 176, 203; on influence 
of New England, 198. 

Councils, Massachusetts elec- 
tive, 21; status, powers, ap- 
pointment, 65, 67; financial 
powers, 75, 199, 220. 

Cranston, Samuel, as governor, 

Creek Indians, and Georgia, 257, 
262; English trade, 283. 

Crown, personal colonial con- 
trol, 43. See also Colonies, 
Legislation, Governors, and 
kings by name. 

Currency act (1707), 39, 40. See 
also Money, Paper money. 

Customs, establishment, im- 
perial control, 14; friction, 
14; official bonds, 34; colo- 
nial legislation, 175; duties on 



immigrants, 233; on slaves, 

Cutler, Timothy, Anglican, 90; 
and Yale, 308. 

Debts, colonial English, 180; 
English imprisonment for, 

Deerfield destroyed, 145. 

De Lancey, James, Zenger trial, 

204; political influence, 206. 
Delaware, Lord, as governor, 


Denonville, Marquis de, expe- 
dition against Senecas, 113. 

Dongan, Thomas, and Iroquois, 

Douglass, William, physician, 

Dudley, Joseph, and imperial 
control, 32; salary question, 
77; and Anglicanism, 87; 
project of neutrality, 141, 
148; and Abenakis, 145, 163; 
and illegal trade, 148; social 
influence, 302. 

Dudley, Paul, lawyer, 318; 
scientist, 319. 

Dulany, Daniel, career, 221, 
222, 318. 

Dummer, Jeremiah, defence of 
Massachusetts, 160; on con- 
quest of Canada, 162; de- 
fence of charters, 184; on 
loyalty, 188; and Yale, 308. 

Dummer, Fort, 245. 

Dustin, Hannah, adventure, 

Dutch, colonists (1689), 6; in 

New York, 229. 
Dutch Reformed Church in 

colonies, 7. 

Ebenezer settled, 258, 
Economic conditions, colonial 
(1689), 9; issues, 204; Geor- 
gia, 266; southern industry, 
270-276; northern industry, 
276, 277; prosperity, 299; 

VOL, VI. — 24 

bibliography, 332, 333. See 
also Finances, Fisheries, Com- 
merce, Manufactures. 

Education, Harvard and Puri- 
tanism, 86, 309-311 ; license 
of school-masters, 92; Will- 
iam and Mary, 93, 304, 305; 
Princeton, 216, 312; south- 
ern schools, 306, 307; Yale, 
307-309; middle colonies, 
311; libraries, 312-314; bib- 
liography, 336. 

Edwards, Jonathan, Great 
Awakening, 321; thinker and 
poet, 322, 323. 

Elections, frequency, 72, 176, 
195; judging, 73; South Caro- 
lina law, 183; bibliography, 

England, results of revolution 
of 1689, 3, 68; politics and 
religion, 83 ; measures against 
dissenters, 99; foreign policy 
of later Stuarts, 106, 107; and 
France in America (1689), 109, 
112; War of Grand Alliance, 
114, 133; War of the Span- 
ish Succession, 136-139, 161, 
165; naval power, 140, 161; 
imprisonment for debt, 252. 
See also Colonies, Parliament. 

Entail in South, 255, 267, 

Expenditures, control in colo- 
nies, 74, 75. 
Exploration, Spotswood, 209. 

Falmouth. See Casco. 

Faneuil, Peter, illicit trade, 
294; as a merchant, 299. 

Fashions, colonial, 320. 

Finances, colonial money, 39, 
295; control of colonial, 73- 
78, 198-200, 220; debts in 
England, 180; banks, 180, 
187, 215, 225, 297; paper 
money, 180, 204-207, 215, 
225, 295, 298; bibliography, 


Fisheries, New England, lo; ex- 
tent, 284; and international 
trade, 285. 

Five Nations. See Iroquois. 

Fletcher, Benjamin, and An- 
glicanism, 95, 96; military 
commission, 117; and Iro- 
quois, 130; and pirates, 292. 

Florida, and South Carolina, 
140, 150-153, 260; and Geor- 
gia, 261-264. 

France, and England in Ameri- 
ca (1689), 109, 112; war of 
the Grand Alliance, 114, 133; 
and Indian warfare, 146; 
war of the Spanish Succes- 
sion, 136-139, 161, 165. See 
also Acadia, Canada. 

Franklin, Benjamin, on paper 
money and loyalty, 180, 297; 
early career, 225-227; edu- 
cational influence, 311, 314; 
scientist, 319; culture, 324. 

Frederica, settled, 260; defence, 

Frontenac, Count, leadership, 
116; border raids, 121; and 
Phips's expedition, 124; plans 
against Boston and New 
York, 125; and Iroquois, 130, 

Frontenac, Fort, re-established, 

Frontier, Scotch-Irish settlers, 
233, 236; in 1750, 245-248. 

Fur trade, New England, 10; 
competition, iii ; impor- 
tance, 283. 

Garden, Alexander, culture. 

Georgia, charter, 184, 253-256; 
objects of settlement, 251, 
253; founder, 251-253; ter- 
ritory, 253; religious liberty, 

254, 269; land regulation, 

255, 257, 265-267; trade re- 
strictions, 255, 267; slavery, 
255, 265-267; selected immi- 


grants, 256; and South Caro- 
lina, 256; and Indians, 256, 
260, 262, 284; settlement, 257; 
government, 258, 267, 268; 
Germans, 258, 259; Scotch, 
259; military colony, 260; 
Augusta, 260; and Spaniards, 
261-264; Wesleys in, 264; in- 
ternal dissensions , 265-267; 
economic conditions, 266; 
growth with slavery, 267; 
royal province, 268; popula- 
tion (1760), 269; bibliogra- 
^ Phy, 339- 

Germans, immigration, 230- 
232, 276; in Georgia, 258, 
259; bibliography, 335. 

Germantown in 1750, 243. 

Gibraltar, England acquires, 

Glen, James, on control of ap- 
pointments, 200. 

Gloucester fishing industry, 

Goodwin, John, witchcraft, 

Governors, and customs officers, 
14, power of Massachusetts, 
21; and imperial control, 32; 
oath, 34; royal control of 
proprietary, 34, 57, 254; in- 
structions on legislation, 53, 
174; trial for misconduct, 55; 
over several colonies, 56, 58; 
status, 64; and councils, 65; 
powers, 65; conflict with as- 
semblies, 67, 194-200; repre- 
sent prerogative, 69; salary 
controversies, 75, 196-198; 
character, 172, 173; instruc- 
tions, 173; and Board of 
Trade, 173; and navigation 
acts, 177. 

Grand Alliance, war of the, 114, 
133. See also King William's 

Great Awakening, 321. 
Gridley, Jeremiah, lawyer, 318. 
Groton, Indian raid, 127. 



Habeas Corpus in colonies, 71, 
72, 202. 

Habersham, James, and slavery 

in Georgia, 266. 
Hamilton, Andrew, control of 

post-of&ce, 41; Zenger trial, 

204, 223; career, 223, 318. 
Harley. See Oxford. 
Harvard College, growth of 

liberalism, 86, 310; charter 

question, 309; progress, 310; 

library, 312. 
Hats, restriction on colonial 

industry, 279. 
Haverhill, Indian raids, 128, 


Hill, Jack, Quebec expedition, 

Hollis, Thomas, and Harvard, 

Howard of Effingham, Lord, 
governor, 24. 

Hudson Bay, trading-posts, 5; 
rival claims, 109; Iberville's 
expedition, 133; English con- 
trol, 162. 

Huguenots, in colonies (1689), 
6, 9; in south, 235; bibliog- 
raphy, 336. 

Himter, Robert, and imperial 
control, 32; salary question, 
77 ; and colonial bishops, 104. 

Hutchinson, Thomas, early ca- 
reer, 225. 

Iberville, Sieur de, partisan 
leader, 116; raids, 127. 

Immigration, development and 
character , 229-237; bibliog- 
raphy, 335, 336. 

Impressment, colonial seamen 
exempted, 37. 

Independence, colonies accused 
of desiring, 80; influences, 81, 
188; desire for, denied, 184. 

Indians, trade, 110, iii, 192, 
212, 213, 250, 251, 260, 283; 
raids, 110, 119, 121, 126-128, 
142-147, 245; treaties, 127, 

134, 145, 163; Tuscarora war, 
163, 164; Yemassee war, 182; 
and Georgia, 256, 260, 262. 
See also Iroquois. 

Indigo culture and trade, 274. 

Ireland, considered alien, 4; 
and navigation acts, 36. 

Iron, colonial production, 209, 
210, 279; regulation of manu- 
factures, 280. 

Iroquois, French - English in- 
trigue, 111-113, 129-132; 
French expeditions against, 
113, 132; English suzerainty, 
113, 134, 162; raids on Cana- 
da, 120; weakened, 131-133; 
French treaty, 134; in Queen 
Anne's War, 141-143, 156, 
159; in England, 157; re- 
ceive Tuscaroras, 164. 

Jamaica, English colony, 5. 

James II., foreign policy, 106- 
108; and Iroquois, 112. 

Jenckes, Joseph, paper-money 
issue, 205. 

Jesuits, Indian missionaries, 
110, 112, 126, 146. 

Jews, restrictions on rights, 
202; in Georgia, 269. 

Johnson, Sir Nathaniel, and 
Anglicanism, 98; and Span- 
iards, 151. 

Johnson, Robert, and proprie- 
tary, 183. 

Johnson, Samuel, and King's 
College, 304. 

Joncaire, L. T. de, and Iroquois, 

Jones, Hugh, on Virginians, 

Judiciary, appeal to Privy 
Council, 12, 54; piracy courts, 
39, 53; colonial admiralty, 
48, 53; trial of governors, 55; 
power of governor and coun- 
cil, 66. 

Jury trial, denied, 54; right, 


Kalm, Peter, on colonial pros- 
perity, 300. 

Keith, George, Anglican agent, 

Keith, Sir William, career, 216. 

Kennett, White, and colonial 
bishops, 104. 

Kidd, William, career, 292. 

King George, Fort, 250. 

King William's War, local 
causes, 108; English aid for 
colonists, 115; rival resources 
and conditions, 11 5-1 18; no 
decisive results, 118, 133; 
West Indian operations, 119, 
126; French and Indian raids, 
119, 121, 126-128; French 
plans, 120, 125, 129; French 
privateers, 122; capture of 
Acadia, 122; Quebec expedi- 
tion, 122-125, 128; Acadia 
retaken, 126; Abenaki treaty, 
127, 134; Newfoundland and 
Acadia raids, 127; intrigue 
over Iroquois, 129-132; Fort 
Frontenac , 132; expedition 
against Iroquois, 132 ; Hudson 
Bay expedition, 133; treaty, 
133; French- Iroquois peace, 
134. See also Grand Alliance. 

King's College. See Columbia 

Labor, southern, 272; north- 
em, 277; bibliography, 333. 

Lachine, Iroquois raid, 120. 

La Hogue, battle, 114. 

Lancaster in 1744, 246. 

Land, quit-rents, 204; Georgia 
regulation, 255, 257, 265-267 ; 
engrossment in South, 270- 
272, 275; northern holdings, 
276; bibliography, 332. 

La Prairie attacked, 123. 

Lawson, John, murdered, 163. 

Lawyers, eminent colonial, 317, 

Leeward Islands, English colo- 
ny. 5- 

Le Feboure, M., attack on 
Charleston, 152. 

Legislation, colonial, royal veto, 
12, 21, 49-53. 174-176, 219; 
and navigation acts, 35; sus- 
pending clause, 53; instruc- 
tions to governors, 53, 174; 
tariff, 175; private, 175. See 
also subjects by name. 

Leverett, John, and Harvard, 

Libraries, colonial, 312-314. 
Linen industry, 278. 
Lining, John, scientist, 319. 
Literature, colonial interest, 

Livingston, Robert, plan for 
union, 57; family of political 
leaders, 206. 

Local government, Georgia, 

Locke, John, in Board of 
Trade, 47. 

Logan, James, on privateers, 
144; on non-English immi- 
gration, 232, 233. 

Logwood trade, 287. 

Lords of Trade, new establish- 
ment (1689), 17. See also 
Board of Trade. 

Louis XIV., and Stuarts, 106, 
107; and revolution of 1689, 
107; and Spanish succession, 

Lovewell's war, 245. 

Lucas, Eliza, teaches slaves, 

Lumber trade, 274, 277, 287. 

Lutheranism, in colonies 
(1689), 7, 8; in Georgia, 269. 

Lyman, Caleb, scalping expedi- 
tion, 147. 

Maine, joined to Massachu- 
setts, 21; frontier, 110, 245. 
See also New England. 

Manufactures, colonial, re- 
vStrictions, 36, 177-179, 278- 
282; iron, 209, 210, 279-281; 



extent, 277; woollen, 278; 
linen, 278; hats, 279; ship- 
btiilding, 281; mm, 282; 
bibliography, 333. 

March, John, Acadian expedi- 
tion, 149. 

Maryland, religious conditions 
(1689), 8; agriculture (1689), 
9; governmental type, 12; 
revolution, 18; reorganiza- 
tion, 22, 59; bill of rights, 71; 
establishment of Anglican- 
ism, 94, 96; discipline over 
clergy, 103; proprietary re- 
stored, 181; boundary dis- 
putes, 191; controversy over 
personal statutory rights, 
201, 221 ; party cleavage, 207 ; 
white servants, 237, 272; 
paper money, 297; schools, 
306; bibliography, 330, 339. 
See also South. 

Massachusetts, population 
(1689), 5; new charter, 21, 
25; witchcraft, 25-29, 85; 
royal veto, 50; continued in- 
fluence of old charter, 69; 
bill of rights, 71, 72; habeas 
corpus, 71, 72; control of 
finances and officials, 73-75, 
77; Harvard, 86, 309-311; 
Land Bank, 180, 187, 215, 
225, 297; trade dispute, 192; 
personal imion with New 
Hampshire, 193 ; speaker con- 
troversy, 195, 224; explana- 
tory charter, 196; salary con- 
troversy, 196, 213, 214; press 
censorship, 203; party ten- 
dencies, 205; Burnet as gov- 
ernor, 213; Belcher as gov- 
ernor, 214, 215; paper money, 
215, 225, 296; frontier (1750), 
245; bibliography, 337. See 
also New England. 

Mather, Cotton, and witch- 
craft, 26, 29; conservatism, 
86; and Yale, 86, 309; library, 
313; culture, 316, 317, 319. 

Mather, Increase, and witch- 
craft, 26; and charter, 84; 
conservatism, 86. 

Medicine, progress, 317. 

Middle colonies, population 
(1689), 5; religious freedom, 
8, 234; economic condition 
(1689), 9; races, 234; urban 
centres, 243; land holdings, 
276; labor, 277; industry, 
277; commerce, 286. See 
also colonies by name. 

Militia, intercolonial command, 
56, 117- 

Minorca, English possession, 

Molasses Act, 179, 252, 289, 

Molasses trade, 36, 286, 289. 

Money, diverse colonial stand- 
ards, 39, 295; proclamation 
on standard, 40; currency 
act (1707), 40; bibliography, 
333. See also Paper money. 

Montgomerie, John, on trien- 
nial elections, 195. 

Moore, James, Florida expedi- 
tion, 151; governor, 183. 

Moore, James, Jr., Tuscarora 
expedition, 164. 

Moore, Fort, 250. 

Moravians in Georgia, 259, 269. 

Morris, Lewis, as governor, 
173; on influences of New 
England, 198; and Cosby, 
203, 223; career, 222. 

Natural science, colonial in- 
terest, 318. ^ 

Naval stores industry, 36-38, 
177, 178, 274, 285. 

Navigation acts, evasion. 10, 
31, 293-295; principles, 13; 
constitutional results, 14; 
(1696), 33-36; enumerated 
commodities, 35, 36, 178, 
274; Whig policy, 177; fos- 
ter West Indies interests, 177, 
179; export duties removed, 


178; direct trade extended, 
178, 274; Molasses Act, 179, 
289; and Connecticut, 219. 

Navy, English colonists ex- 
empted, 37; growth of Brit- 
ish, 140, 161. 

Naxouat, Villebon at, 126; at- 
tacked, 127, 

Neale. Thomas, control of post- 
office, 41. 

Nelson, Fort, captured, 133. 

Nesmond, Marquis de, expedi- 
tion, 129. 

New Brunswick, German set- 
tlement, 234. 

New England, population 
(1689), 5; religious condition 
(1689), 7; economic condi- 
tions (1689), 10; practical 
independence, 12; consoli- 
dated, 15, 16; spirit of self- 
government, 70; hold of 
Puritanism (1700), 83-85; 
growth of dissent, 86-91; 
loyalty of Anglicans, 91 ; ear- 
ly French and Indian raids, 
110; northern boundary, no; 
boimdary disputes, 190, 191; 
political influence, 198; ra- 
cial condition, 229; urban 
centres, 243; land holdings, 
276; labor, 277; industry, 
277; fisheries and trade, 284- 
286; West Indies trade, 286, 
289; coasting trade, 290; in- 
fluence of Anglicanism, 303; 
libraries, 313; clergy, 316; 
literary culture, 318; bibliog- 
raphy, 331, 332, 337. See 
also colonies and wars by 

New Hampshire, royal prov- 
ince, 21; trade dispute, 192; 
personal union with Massa- 
chusetts, 193; and Belcher, 
215; frontier (1750), 245; 
bibliography, 337. See also 
New England. 

New Haven in 1750, 244. 

New Inverness settled, 259. 

New Jersey, royal province, 50, 
58; Anglicanism, 95; Queen 
Anne's War, 156; personal 
union with New York, 193; 
triennial act, 195; Belcher as 
governor , 216; non- Engli sh 
immigrants, 234; schools, 
311; college , 312; bibliog- 
raphy, 338. See also Middle 

New Jersey, College of. See 
Princeton College. 

New London in 1750, 244. 

New York, religious condi- 
tions (1689), 7; patent (1664) 
15; Leisler, 18; royal prov- 
ince, 22; royal veto, 52; bill 
of rights, 70, 72; appoint- 
ment of treasurer, 76; salary 
controversy, 78, 197; An- 
glicanism, 95; frontier situa- 
tion (1689), iii; and Iro- 
quois, III — 113, 129 — 134; 
Queen Anne's War, 141-143, 
155; triennial act, 176, 195, 
198; boundary disputes, 190, 
191; personal union with New 
Jersey, 193; Zenger trial, 203, 
204; party factions, 206 ; Bur- 
net as governor, 212, 213; 
Oswego, 212; trade with 
Canada, 213; Dutch element, 
229; Palatines, 230-232; sla- 
very, 238; negro plots, 240; 
frontier (1740), 246; land 
grants and immigration, 276; 
paper money, 297; schools, 
311; physicians, 317; bibli- 
ography, 338. See also King 
William's War, Middle colo- 

New York City, trade, 9, 287; 
growth, 243; society, 320. 

Newcastle, Duke of, as secre- 
tary of state, 168, 172. 

Newfoundland, settlements, 5; 
French fort, 5; rival claims, 
109; Iberville's raid, 127; 



English control, 162; French 
fisheries, 162. 

Newport, in 1750, 244; slave- 
trade, 286. 

Newspapers, German, 232; co- 
lonial, 314, 315- 

Nicholson, Francis, governor. 
32, 183; and imperial con- 
trol, 32, 58; and Anglican- 
ism, 95; Canadian expedition, 
156-160; conquers Acadia, 
157; social influence, 302, 

Norfolk in 1750, 243. 

North CaroHna, Ajiglicanism, 
96-98; Gary rebellion, 98, 
182; ecclesiastical test, 100; 
Tuscarora war, 163; irreg-u- 
larities, 181; overthrow of 
proprietary, 183; boimdary 
disputes, 191, 192; trade dis- 
pute, 192; character of in- 
habitants, 193, 275; appor- 
tionment controversy, 194; 
frontier (1750), 247; pirates, 
292, 293; paper money, 297; 
schools, 306; bibliography, 
339. 5^^a/so Carolinas.South. 

Nottingham, Earl of, secretary 
of state, 45. 

Oglethorpe, J. E., on Board 
of Trade, 170; on Molasses 
Act, 179; career and per- 
sonality, 251-253; governor 
of Georgia, 256; and Indians, 
256, 262; la^^s out Savannah, 
257; paternalistic rule, 258, 
268; and Spaniards, 261- 
264; opposition, 265. 

Oswego founded, 212. 

Oxford, Earl of, control over 
colonies, 45; Tory minister, 

Oyster River raid, 127. 

Palatines, immigration, 230- 

Paper money, English hostilit}^, 
180, 298;' effect on loyalty, 

180; party conflicts, 204- 
207; controversy in Massa- 
chusetts, 215, 225 ; issues and 
depreciation, 295-297; banks, 

Parliament, colonial control, 
13) 33» 3S-42, 60-62; colo- 
nial super\'ision, 48, 176; 
control of Board of Trade, 
46, 49; bills against charters, 
60; party administration, 
166; XVhig^ control, 166; Wal- 
pole premier, 166 ; on colonial 
debts and paper money, 180; 
act on Carolinas, 183; colo- 
nial taxation discussed, 185, 

Pemaquid, fort of, 110, 119; 
captured, 120, 127; rebuilt, 

Penn, William, retains control, 
23; on ciirrency standards, 
40; on Anne's influence, 44; 
plan of tmion, 57; defends 
his proprietary, 59, 61 ; ready 
to surrender, 62; on bribery, 

Pennsylvania, social elements, 
6, 230, 232-234; religious 
conditions (1689), 8; royal 
veto, 15, 49, 52; proprietary 
retained, 23 ; temporary royal 
control, 59; spirit of self- 
government, 70; Anglican- 
ism, 95, loi; Queen Anne's 
War, 144, 156, 159; boim- 
dary disputes , 191 ; party ten- 
dencies, 206; Keith's career, 
216; white ser\'ants, 237; 
frontier (1750), 246; paper 
money, 279; schools, 311; 
bibliography, 330, 331, 338. 
See also ^Middle colonies. 

Pennsylvania, University of, 
foundation, 312. 

Petition, colonial right, 186. 

Philadelphia, trade, 9, 286; 
growth, 243; library, 314. 

Phips, Sir William, captures 


Acadia, 21, 122; Congrega- 
tionalist, 84; military com- 
mission, 117; Quebec ex- 
pedition, 123-125; and Abe- 
nakis, 127. 
Pinckney, Charles, career, 221, 

Pirates, act agamst, 38, 53; 
countenanced, 291; Kidd, 
292; suppression, 292, 293. 

Plymouth joined to Massachu- 
setts, 21. 

Politics, party germs, 205-207; 
lack of opportimity, 208; 
leaders, 208-227; bibliogra- 
phy, 329-331. See also As- 
semlDlies, Governors. 

Poor whites, North Carolina, 

Population, colonial (1689), 5, 
6; (1740), 228; slave (1750), 
238; Philadelphia (i 740) , 243; 
New York City (1703), 243; 
(1741), 244; Boston (1730), 
244; Georgia (1760), 269. 

Port Royal, captured, 21, 122, 
157; recovered, 21, 126. See 
also Acadia. 

Portland. See Casco. 

Portsmouth in 1750, 244. 

Post-office, colonial, imperial 
control, 40; Spotswood's ser- 
vices, 210. 

Presbyterianism, in colonies, 
(1689), 9; in Georgia, 269; 
Princeton, 312. 

Press, censorship, 202; libel, 
203; Zenger trial, 203; news- 
papers, 232, 314,^ 315. 

Prince, Thomas, library, 313; 
culture, 316. 

Princeton College, foundation, 
216, 312. 

Privateering, French, 122, 140, 
143; colonial, 291. 

Privy Council, colonial appeal, 
to, 12, 54; composition, 44; 
control over colonies, 44, 45, 
170; and Congregational es- 

tablishment, 89 ; on civil lists, 

Property, intestate inheritance, 

Proprietary government, royal 

checks, 12, 34, 57, 254; 

measures against, 15, 18; 

policy of William III., 22; 

restored in Maryland, 181; 

abolished in Carolina, 181- 

184; Georgia, 184, 254. 
Provisions industry, 274, 277, 


Puritanism, relaxation, 83, 85; 
hold on New England (1700) , 
83, 84; Congregational es- 
tablishment, 83, 88; super- 
naturalism, 85; effect of 
witchcraft delusion, 85 ; Brat- 
tle Street Church, 85; Har- 
vard, 86, 309; and growth of 
Anglicanism, 87; Yale, 307- 
309 ;_ culture of clergy, 316; 
bibliography, 331. 

Quakerism, colonial (1689), 8, 
9; growth in New England, 
87; and support of establish- 
ment, 89, 90; and Anglican- 
ism, loi; and slavery, 242; 
and education, 311. 

Quarry, Robert, and imperial 
control, 32, 58; on Pennsyl- 
vania industry, 277. 

Quebec, expeditions against 
(1690), 122-125; (1693), 128; 
(1711), 159, 160. 

Queen Anne's War, projects of 
colonial neutrality, 140, 148; 
New York frontier neutral- 
ized, 141 ; on New England 
frontier, 142-147; first pe- 
riod, 143; commerce destroy- 
ing, 143; South Carolina and 
Florida, 143, 150-153; atti- 
tude of middle colonies, 144; 
second period, 144; Deerfield 
raid, 145; retaliatory raids, 
147; scalp boimty, 147; inef- 



ficient organization of New 
England, 148; Acadian expe- 
ditions, 149 ; English aid, 154- 
160; plans against Canada 
(1709), 155; conquest of 
Acadia, 157; Canadian ex- 
pedition (1711), 157-160; re- 
sults, 162, 165; Indian treaty, 
163; Tuscarora war, 163, 164. 
See also Spanish Succession. 
Quit-rents, 204. 

Race elements, colonial (1689), 
6; New England, 229; non- 
English, 229-236. See also 

Rale, Sebastian, and Abenakis, 

Randolph, Edward, and im- 
perial control, 15, 31, 58; 
retains office, 24. 

Reading, Massachusetts, Indian 
raid, 146. 

Reading, Pennsylvania, in 1 7 5 2 , 

Religion, colonial conditions 
(1689), 7-9; test in South 
Carolina, 48, 100, 220; in- 
fluence on English politics, 
83; colonial restrictions on 
liberty, 202; complexity of 
middle colonies, 234; free- 
dom in Georgia, 254, 269; 
Great Awakening, 321; bib- 
liography ,331,332. See also 
sects by name. 

Representation, universal colo- 
nial, 12, 66; none in domin- 
ion of New England, 16; and 
taxation, 41, 67, 70, 185, 186; 
property, 66; colonial, in Par- 
liament, 186. See also Assem- 

Revenue, imperial postal, from 

colonies, 41. 
Revolution, American, religious 

cause, 105. 
Revolution of 1689, results in 

England, 3, 68; in colonies, 

4, 15, 106; international re- 
sults, 107. 

Rhode Island, proposed royal 
control, 59, 185; character 
of leaders, 217 ; paper money, 
205, 296; party tendencies, 
205; slavery, 238; bibliog- 
raphy, 337. See also New 

Rice culture and trade, 36, 178, 

Rights, of colonists as Britons, 
201, 202; habeas corpus, 202; 
religious liberty, 202; free- 
dom of press, 202-204. 

Rum, prohibition in Georgia, 
255, 267; manufacture, 282; 
and slave-trade, 286. 

St. Augustine, English at- 
tacks, 151, 262. 

St. Castin, Baron de, settle- 
ment, no; raid on Pema- 
quid, 120. 

St. Christopher, seized by 
France, 119; English con- 
trol, 126, 161. 

St. John. See Bolingbroke. 

Salaries, colonial controversies, 

^ 75. 77. 196. ^ 

Salem, witchcraft, 27-29, 85; 
in 1750, 244. 

Salmon Falls destroyed, 121. 

Salt trade, 178. 

Salzburgers in Georgia, 258. 

Savannah founded, 257. 

Schenectady, outpost, in; de- 
stroyed, 121. 

Schuyler, Peter, on capture of 
Schenectady, 121; attack on 
La Prairie, 123 ; and Iro- 
quois, 130, 159; in England, 

Scotch Highlanders in Georgia, 

Scotch-Irish, in middle colonies, 
233; in South, 235, 236, 276. 

Scotland, considered alien, 4; 
and navigation acts, 34, 36. 


Secretaries of state, colonial 
control, 45, 168. 

Servants, white, redemptioners, 
237; convicts, 237; labor, 
272, 277; bibliography, 334. 

Bewail, Samuel, and witch- 
craft, 29; conservatism, 86, 
87; antislavery, 242. 

Shenandoah valley, settlement, 
236, 246. 

Ship-building, extent, 10, 281; 
EngHsh jealousy, 281; trade, 
286, 287. 

Shipping, registration, 35; Eng- 
lish and colonial, 288. 

Shirley, William, as governor, 

Shrewsbury, Duke of, secre- 
tary of state, 45. 

Shute, Samuel, speaker con- 
troversy, 195, 224; and Har- 
vard, 310. 

Slaver}^, colonial (1689), 6, 9, 
10; population (1750), 238; 
distribution, 2 38; slave codes, 
239; conditions, 240; insur- 
rections, 240; instruction, 
241; evils recognized, 241; 
ethical aspect ignored, 242; 
antislavery, 242; prohilDi- 
tion in Georgia, 255, 265- 
267 ; labor, 272 ; bibliography, 

Slave-trade, Astento, 161, 23S; 
growth, 238; retaliatory du- 
ties, 241; and rum, 286; bib- 
liography, 333. 

Social conditions, religion 
(1689), 7-9; (1740), 269, 321; 
slavery (1689), 9, 10; (1740), 
238-242, 272 ; Puritanism and 
dissent, 83-91; Anglicanism, 
91-105, 302-304; aristoc- 
racy, 206, 207; non-English 
immigration, 229-236, 258, 
259; white servants, 237, 
272, 277; towns, 243-245; 
frontier, 245-248; progress, 
301 ; touch with Europe, 301 ; 

leaders, 302, 322-324; edu- 
cation, 304-312; libraries, 
312-314; journalism, 314, 
315; professions, 315-318; 
general culture, 318-321 ; bib- 
liography, 333-337. See also 

Society for Propagating the 
Gospel, 94, 95; social influ- 
ence, 303, 313. 

Sources, on period 1689-1740, 
326, 327; on international re- 
lations, 328; on English opin- 
ion, 328; on home relations, 
329; on conditions, 334, 335; 
on individual colonies, 337- 

South, population (1689), 6; 
slavery, 238-242; lack of 
urban centres, 243, 273 ; plan- 
tation system, 270-272 ; slave 
labor, 272; products and 
trade, 272-275; immigration, 
276; small farmers, 275, 276. 
See also colonies by name. 

South Carolina, slaves (16S9), 
6 ; economic conditions 
(1689), 9; ecclesiastical test, 
48, 100, 220; habeas corpus, 
71; Anglicanism, 98; dis- 
cipline over clergy, 99, 102; 
Spanish antagonism, 140, 
150; Spanish attacks (1702), 
150; (1706), 152, 153; Florida 
expedition, 151; Yemassee 
war, 182; petition against 
proprietary, 182; election 
law, 183; overthrow of pro- 
prietary, 183; boundary dis- 
putes, 191, 192; Indian trade, 
192, 284; salary controversy, 
197; power of council, 199; 
control by merchants, 207; 
control of finances, 220; non- 
English settlers, 234, 235; 
slave insurrection, 240; fron- 
tier (1750), 247; need of bar- 
rier colony, 249; growth 
southward, 250; and Georgia, 



256; and pirates, 293; paper 
money, 297; schools, 306, 
307; physicians, 317; liter- 
ary culture, 318; natural 
science, 319; art, 319; so- 
ciety, 319-321; bibliography, 
330,332,339. See also Cslto- 
linas, South. 

Spain, War of Grand Alliance, 
114, 133; succession, 136- 
139; and English colonies, 
140, 150. See also Florida. 

Spanish Succession, War of the, 
causes, 136-139; progress, 
140; treaty, 160, 161; bibliog- 
raphy, 327, 5^^ a/50 Queen 
Anne's War. 

Speakership controversies, 195, 

Spotswood, Alexander, and im- 
perial control, 32; and An- 
glicanism, 95; career, 208- 
211; and pirates, 293; social 
influence, 302. 

Stephen, William, in Georgia, 

Stoughton .William, Puritan, 84. 

Subercase, D. A. de, defends 
Port Royal, 149. 

Sudbury, Indian raid, 146. 

Suffrage, property qualifica- 
tion, 66; religious qualifica- 
tion, 84; bibliograph3^ 330. 

Sugar. See Molasses trade. 

Swansea, Baptist establish- 
ment, 89. 

Talbot, John, Anglican agent, 

Talcott, Joseph, career, 217- 

Taxation of colonies, and rep- 
resentation, 41, 67, 70, 185, 
186 ; parliamentary, pro- 
posed, 185; right discussed 
(1733), 186; Walpole's policy, 

Teach, pirate, 293. 
Thatch, pirate, 293. 

Thury, Peter, and Abenakis, 

Tobacco, industry (1689), 9; 

culture and regulation (1750) , 

272-274; trade, 287. 
Towns, colonial (1750), 243- 

245; lacking in south, 273. 
Treasurer, appointment, 76, 


Treaties, Dover (1670), 107; of 
American neutrality (16 86), 
112; Ryswick (1697), 133; 
Utrecht (17 13), 161. 

Trott, Nicholas, lawyer, 318. 

Tuscarora war, 163, 164. 

Union, under Stuarts, 15; 
policy of William III., 18; 
military motive, 18, 20, 30, 
56, II 6- 118; personal exec- 
utive, 56, 193; Penn's plan, 
57; Livingston's plan, 57; 
Leisler ' s convention , 117, 
123; Fletcher's convention, 
117; proposal (1744), 185. 

Usher, John, in New Hamp- 
shire, 24. 

Vaudreuil, Philippe de, and 
projects of neutrality, 141, 
148 ; instigates Abenaki raids, 
142, 146. 

Vermont settlement, 245. 

Vetch, Samuel, plan against 
Canada, 154, _i55._ 

Veto. See Legislation. 

Villebon, Chevalier de, recovers 
Acadia, 126, 

Villieu, partisan leader, 116; 
and Abenakis, 127. 

Virginia, religious conditions 
(1689), 8; agriculture (1689), 
9; governors, 24; bill of 
rights, 70; control of finances, 
75, 76; Anglicanism, 92, 102; 
boundary disputes, 191; 
trade dispute, 192; Indian 
trade, 192, 284; aristocratic 
control, 207; Spotswood as 


governor, 209, 210; iron in- 
dustry, 209, 210; non-Eng- 
lish settlers, 234, 235; slave- 
code, 239; frontier (1750), 
246; paper money, 297; col- 
lege, 304, 305; bibliography, 
332, 338. See also South. 

Wager, Sir Charles, colonial 
interest, 171. 

Walker, Henderson, and An- 
glicanism, 97, 

Walker, Sir Hovenden, Quebec 
expedition, 159. 

Walley, John, Quebec expedi- 
tion, 125. 

Walpole, Sir Robert, premier, 
166; colonial policy, 167, 187. 

Wars, and colonial union, 18, 20, 
30, 56, 1 1 6-1 18; bibliography, 
327, 328. See also wars by 

Wells, Indian attack, 126. 

Wesley, Charles, in Georgia, 264. 

Wesley, John, in Georgia, 264. 

West, Richard, on colonists' 
personal rights, 201. 

West, Spotswood's interest, 
209; Burnet's interest, 212. 
See also Frontier. 

West Indies, English posses- 
sions (1689), 5, 109; inter- 
course with main -land, 5; 
operations (1689), 119; 
(1690), 126; results of war, 
161; interests considered su- 
perior, 177, 179, 288; New 
England trade, 286, 289; 
English trade, 288, 289; 
Molasses Act, 289. 

Westover library, 313. 

Wheeler, Sir Francis, Quebec 
expedition, 128. 

Whitefield, George, and sla- 
very in Georgia, 266; Great 
Awakening, 321, 322. 

William III., and colonies, 17- 
24; personal influence on 
colonial policy, 43, 

William and Mary College, 
foundation, 304; progress and 
influence, 305. 

William Penn Charter School, 

Williams, John, Deerfield raid, 

Williamsburg in 1750, 243. 
Winthropj Fitz-John, Quebec 

expedition, 123. 
Winthrop, John, and Harvard, 


Winthrop vs. Lechmere, 218. 

W^itchcraft delusion, Massa- 
chusetts, 25-29; effect on 
Puritanism, 85 ; bibliography, 

Woollens, parliamentary act, 
36; colonial industry, 278; 
English trade, 287. 

Yale, Elihu, and Yale Col- 
lege, 308. 

Yale College, and Cotton Math- 
er, 86; and Berkeley, 304; 
foundation, 307; progress, 
308; conservatism, 309; in- 
fluence, 309; library, 312. 

Yemassee war, 182. 

Yonge, Sir William, on taxing 
colonies, 186. 

York destroyed, 126. 

Yorke, Philip, on colonists' per- 
sonal rights, 201. 

Zenger, J. P., trial, 203, 204,